I agree. Its not as though extensive research has not been tried before. Thats pretty much what X-33 Venturestar was. That didn't work out so well.
Does hope spring eternal or is it too little too late?
Here are a few excepts:
“The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee is proposing to save as many as 7,500 jobs of those who work on NASA's launch team by funding an additional space shuttle supply flight to the International Space Station a year from now. That mission would be followed immediately with the building of a heavy-lift rocket and spacecraft to replace the space shuttle.
“The committee's plan, due to be submitted to President Barack Obama July 15.”
“Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., told NBC News that NASA is on board with the plan that will, while the new heavy-lift rocket and spacecraft are being built, clear the way for commercial rockets to supply the space station.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38058920/ns/technology_and_science/
We aren't at the "too late" point yet.But ATK changed their minds and STS is extended to Feb. 2011, possible longer..............
But the edge of the cliff is swiftly approaching and we have yet to begin turning in a different direction.
I personally believe that if this has not been mandated by the time Congress goes on recess (end July), that will mark the point where it becomes too difficult to be realistic any more.
But even then, I reserve the right to be proven wrong! :)
Ross.
I agree. Its not as though extensive research has not been tried before. Thats pretty much what X-33 Venturestar was. That didn't work out so well.
X-33 failed so the R&D is useless.
*sigh*
The "game changing" R&D that's planned is not the same as trying to develop a SSTO space plane. It focuses on spaceflight technology, not launch vehicles. They should call it "mission enabling", because that's what it's for, enabling missions beyond the Moon.
Edit to add:
If you meant that launchers are as good as they're going to get and the 5 year HLV propulsion R&D won't produce something considerably better, I agree more or less. It's probably just being used as a smokescreen to get a shuttle derived HLV off the table. Unlike X-33 it could produce results though, since it's just kerolox engine development, no fancy new TPS, aerospike engines and such.
But the majority of the R&D focuses on spacecraft technology, not launch vehicles and that's an important difference with the X-33 program imo.
*Sigh* Such a burden you must bear, reading posts from people who don't want a 15 year hiatus in NASA HSF... ;)
*Sigh* Such a burden you must bear, reading posts from people who don't want a 15 year hiatus in NASA HSF... ;)
I was responding mainly to the X-33 analogy. Although isn't the planned hiatus for NASA HSF (I'm assuming you mean domestic capability) 5-6 years?
I was responding mainly to the X-33 analogy. Although isn't the planned hiatus for NASA HSF (I'm assuming you mean domestic capability) 5-6 years?
Unlike X-33 it could produce results though, since it's just kerolox engine development, no fancy new TPS, aerospike engines and such.
I was responding mainly to the X-33 analogy. Although isn't the planned hiatus for NASA HSF (I'm assuming you mean domestic capability) 5-6 years?
The same thing was said about the time between Apollo to Shuttle and it was a 50% longer gap. Start building the replacement now.
The plan is to wait 5 years to decide on a design for an HLV. Then, once a design approach is decided on, how long do you think it would take to implement this clean-sheet HLV, with all new propulsion, in the fiscal environment that is expected five years from now? I think it would be ten years minimum, given past experience. And that's what Bolden's been saying, first manned BEO mission in 2025.
Mark S.
The fancy new TPS and aerospike engines were the parts that worked...
the "plan" is to launch the first HSF to an asteroid after 2025, according to testimony from NASA and speechs from the POTUS; that means they want to spend 10 years from 2015 to 2025 developing a rocket and space vehicle, the latter based on the new game changing technology; that's 15 years hiatus for "domestic" human space flight;
The plan is to wait 5 years to decide on a design for an HLV. Then, once a design approach is decided on, how long do you think it would take to implement this clean-sheet HLV, with all new propulsion, in the fiscal environment that is expected five years from now?
We aren't at the "too late" point yet.They were still talking of restarting Saturn by the time I was watching drop tests of Shuttle.
But the edge of the cliff is swiftly approaching and we have yet to begin turning in a different direction.
I personally believe that if this has not been mandated by the time Congress goes on recess (end July), that will mark the point where it becomes too difficult to be realistic any more.Wrong. I think what you looking at is capitulation of the Cx stalemate. Good riddance.
Splended if this is true. All that is left now is for Mrs. Garver to tender her resignation.Ah yes ... I've long missed ... the voice of sweet, dispassionate reason and compassionate diplomacy ...
Your added paragraph is the critical part. There is no reason to wait five years to start on an HLV. I have no problem with R&D for in-space propulsion, depots, NTR, whatever. I say go for it!There is a reason to delay an HLV: you don't have to pay to maintain it through the years when you have no heavy-lift payloads, saving many billions of dollars. OTOH, you may lose the high-confidence, high-performance capability of DIRECT/SDHLV. Building heavy-lift now means less payload R&D, and less payload. It's a tradeoff. Pro-BEO people can differ in their priorities, and also in their estimation of the political dimension of the NASA budget .
However it is extremely wasteful to throw away existing capabilities (Shuttle), which could be modified into a suitable replacement (SDHLV) without an extensive down-time. Especially when said hiatus will not gain you anything better in the end.
What's the mission for this HLV?
There is a reason to delay an HLV: you don't have to pay to maintain it through the years when you have no heavy-lift payloads, saving many billions of dollars. OTOH, you may lose the high-confidence, high-performance capability of DIRECT/SDHLV. Building heavy-lift now means less payload R&D, and less payload. It's a tradeoff. Pro-BEO people can differ in their priorities, and also in their estimation of the political dimension of the NASA budget .
-Alex
Just get 'er done. Its a lot easier to design something if you have a launcher built and tested than if you have to constantly redesign like Orion had to do with Ares I.Your added paragraph is the critical part. There is no reason to wait five years to start on an HLV. I have no problem with R&D for in-space propulsion, depots, NTR, whatever. I say go for it!There is a reason to delay an HLV: you don't have to pay to maintain it through the years when you have no heavy-lift payloads, saving many billions of dollars. OTOH, you may lose the high-confidence, high-performance capability of DIRECT/SDHLV. Building heavy-lift now means less payload R&D, and less payload. It's a tradeoff. Pro-BEO people can differ in their priorities, and also in their estimation of the political dimension of the NASA budget .
However it is extremely wasteful to throw away existing capabilities (Shuttle), which could be modified into a suitable replacement (SDHLV) without an extensive down-time. Especially when said hiatus will not gain you anything better in the end.
-Alex
And yes, we are going in a different direction - thank god.
And yes, we are going in a different direction - thank god.
I don't favor the status quo in terms of supporting the Program of Record as it existed. But I also think the Obama budget proposal is a mistake. I think the commercialization of LEO ops is inevitable, and in theory it should free NASA to focus on true exploration. However, I believe a solid commitment to beyond-LEO exploration is lacking in this plan, and the proposed timeframe for manned exploration missions is not nearly ambitious enough.
I realize that some argue that we don't need a large heavy lift vehicle at all for meaningful beyond-LEO exploration. Perhaps existing launch vehicles such as the Delta IV, Atlas V, and Falcon 9 could be sufficient along with technologies such as orbital propellant depots. But if we're going to commit to heavy lift, I tend to favor a fast-track approach using existing assets.
In terms of capability building, this plan basically says, "Let us dismantle everything that currently exists, and we'll rebuild our capability a decade down the road, we promise!" I'm skeptical, when once the existing program is gutted, the nebulous R&D program intended to replace it will be an attractive target for budget hawks. Basically, I suspect that Obama's promises of great things down the road in return for dismantling everything today are worth about as much as my Loral stock options turned out to be worth (i.e. nothing)! ;)
I'm definitely a believer that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush!
And that's what Bolden's been saying, first manned BEO mission in 2025.
Mark S.
No, Bolden is saying the HLV will be ready around 2020, with crewed BEO test flights to Lunar orbit/Lagrange points (http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/05/29/is-a-circumlunar-mission-in-nasas-plans/) in "the early 2020s", meaning BEO before 2025 is the official plan.
What's the mission for this HLV?
The launch costs are just a fraction of the cost of a payload. Or at least they ought to be!
What's the mission for this HLV?
What's the mission for this HLV?
Amongst the many problems with proceeding with the construction of a HLV immediately is the one that the only customer for such a vehicle is NASA. You should watch Jeff Greason's talk (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22160.msg613793;topicseen#new) about why that is a bad thing; with NASA as the only customer, there is no opportunity for the various vendors who make components for this HLV to reach economy of scale; thus this HLV will remain expensive for all time.
However, if NASA, the Air Force and commercial customers could agree on at least a subset of common technologies, then vendors will have larger production runs and a greater ability to lower costs. John Logsdon summed it up quite nicely (http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/100630-blog-end-apollo-era-finally.html): this is all about stepping back from Apollo and the mentality it created. Apollo was not sustainable, yet the mentality behind it persists at NASA. Until we can get away from this "as soon as possible" mentality, we will not be building systems that will allow us to go into space and stay.
If you were to clean-sheet a design for an HLV, you wouldn't come up with anything Shuttle-derived. We have an opportunity now to build for the ages -- to pick a design that will serve NASA, the Air Force, commercial and any global customers willing to join us, and serve us well for decades to come. It would be a mistake for Congress to legislate away this opportunity.
Amongst the many problems with proceeding with the construction of a HLV immediately is the one that the only customer for such a vehicle is NASA. You should watch Jeff Greason's talk (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22160.msg613793;topicseen#new) about why that is a bad thing; with NASA as the only customer, there is no opportunity for the various vendors who make components for this HLV to reach economy of scale; thus this HLV will remain expensive for all time.
However, if NASA, the Air Force and commercial customers could agree on at least a subset of common technologies, then vendors will have larger production runs and a greater ability to lower costs. John Logsdon summed it up quite nicely (http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/100630-blog-end-apollo-era-finally.html): this is all about stepping back from Apollo and the mentality it created. Apollo was not sustainable, yet the mentality behind it persists at NASA. Until we can get away from this "as soon as possible" mentality, we will not be building systems that will allow us to go into space and stay.
If you were to clean-sheet a design for an HLV, you wouldn't come up with anything Shuttle-derived. We have an opportunity now to build for the ages -- to pick a design that will serve NASA, the Air Force, commercial and any global customers willing to join us, and serve us well for decades to come. It would be a mistake for Congress to legislate away this opportunity.
You contradicted yourself. A clean sheet HLV will be just as expensive as an SDLV. There are no payload for them. DOD and commercial have no need.
You missed the point of the talk.Amongst the many problems with proceeding with the construction of a HLV immediately is the one that the only customer for such a vehicle is NASA. You should watch Jeff Greason's talk (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22160.msg613793;topicseen#new) about why that is a bad thing; with NASA as the only customer, there is no opportunity for the various vendors who make components for this HLV to reach economy of scale; thus this HLV will remain expensive for all time.
However, if NASA, the Air Force and commercial customers could agree on at least a subset of common technologies, then vendors will have larger production runs and a greater ability to lower costs. John Logsdon summed it up quite nicely (http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/100630-blog-end-apollo-era-finally.html): this is all about stepping back from Apollo and the mentality it created. Apollo was not sustainable, yet the mentality behind it persists at NASA. Until we can get away from this "as soon as possible" mentality, we will not be building systems that will allow us to go into space and stay.
If you were to clean-sheet a design for an HLV, you wouldn't come up with anything Shuttle-derived. We have an opportunity now to build for the ages -- to pick a design that will serve NASA, the Air Force, commercial and any global customers willing to join us, and serve us well for decades to come. It would be a mistake for Congress to legislate away this opportunity.
You contradicted yourself. A clean sheet HLV will be just as expensive as an SDLV. There are no payload for them. DOD and commercial have no need.
Watch the Greason talk. His position is that a Saturn V class vehicle is nice to have, not need to have. A HLV could be as small as 40mT to LEO; would that cost as much as anything Shuttle-derived?
Besides, overall cost is based on lifetime expenditures on a vehicle, not development cost. There's no contradiction.
You missed the point of the talk.You contradicted yourself. A clean sheet HLV will be just as expensive as an SDLV. There are no payload for them. DOD and commercial have no need.Watch the Greason talk. His position is that a Saturn V class vehicle is nice to have, not need to have. A HLV could be as small as 40mT to LEO; would that cost as much as anything Shuttle-derived?
Besides, overall cost is based on lifetime expenditures on a vehicle, not development cost. There's no contradiction.
Oh, come on. Did you actually watch it? Watch it again. He never implied there was any sort of payload for it.You missed the point of the talk.You contradicted yourself. A clean sheet HLV will be just as expensive as an SDLV. There are no payload for them. DOD and commercial have no need.Watch the Greason talk. His position is that a Saturn V class vehicle is nice to have, not need to have. A HLV could be as small as 40mT to LEO; would that cost as much as anything Shuttle-derived?
Besides, overall cost is based on lifetime expenditures on a vehicle, not development cost. There's no contradiction.
I did or Jim did? Greason uses that exact "nice to have, not need" line in the talk.
He said that we don't have money. A clean-sheet HLV, 40 tons to LEO or otherwise, doesn't help this.
I wonder what the reactions would be if a nationwide poll were done on this proposal.If the options for BEO were laid out simply with a year (for when the first mission would occur) stuck next to them ethier ULAs phased approach or more likley the SDHLV would win out.
FY2010's enacted budget saw Appropriations fund Constellation Systems to the tune of about $3.5 billion and Shuttle to another $3.2 billion.How much does a j130 to IOC cost on a per year basis for 4 years? I was under the impression that its 8 billion total. So 2 billion per year and by 2014-2015 we have an HLV up and running. In the mean time the other 4 billion that was shuttle and CXP costs can be used to finish Orion and run a very healthy R&D program. Increase Nasa's budget to 19 billion and you get even more R&D. Also per-vehicle costs for the j130 are intended to be lower than STS stack.
Both of those budget line items are effectively "in play" right now. There is therefore, roughly $6.5 billion worth of annual budget which is being negotiated over right now.
To think that isn't sufficient to pay for an SDLV/Orion *AND* still fund the President's new projects to a healthy level is crazy.
Ross.
Final,:D :D Glad to hear it.
GAO's estimate was $7.2 bn to fund a Jupiter-130 class SDLV to Full Operational Capability (FOC) over 5 years -- and that figure includes a 40% cost-overrun estimate.
Using a not-very-accurate mean average, you get a figure of ~$1.44 bn per year out of that $6.5bn total available budget. That would leave a little over $5 billion every year to fund Orion, COTS, CCDev, expanded ISS activities and R&D efforts. And I'm still not touching the President's $6bn/5yr increases.
To quote the President: "YES YOU CAN!"
Ross.
Splended if this is true. All that is left now is for Mrs. Garver to tender her resignation.If only......
Thats what he said initally He was later quoted as saying: sometime around 2025.....And that's what Bolden's been saying, first manned BEO mission in 2025.
Mark S.
No, Bolden is saying the HLV will be ready around 2020, with crewed BEO test flights to Lunar orbit/Lagrange points (http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/05/29/is-a-circumlunar-mission-in-nasas-plans/) in "the early 2020s", meaning BEO before 2025 is the official plan. Also, the LOX/RP1 engine (and LOX/methane upper stage engine) is supposed to begin development in 2011 and be finished by 2020, with the rest of the HLV beginning development no later than 2015 after design is finalized.
Thats what he said initally He was later quoted as saying: sometime around 2025.....
Point being if your going to wait 5 years and develop a new booster and facilities from scratch no one on this planet has a clue when BEO would happen
GAO's estimate was $7.2 bn to fund a Jupiter-130 class SDLV to Full Operational Capability (FOC) over 5 years -- and that figure includes a 40% cost-overrun estimate.$1.5 billion/yr, average? How is that possible when STS presently costs something like ~$3 billion/yr, when the whole program is shutting down and Michoud is partially closed?
Using a not-very-accurate mean average, you get a figure of ~$1.44 bn per year out of that $6.5bn total available budget.
Final,
GAO's estimate was $7.2 bn to fund a Jupiter-130 class SDLV to Full Operational Capability (FOC) over 5 years -- and that figure includes a 40% cost-overrun estimate.
Using a not-very-accurate mean average, you get a figure of ~$1.44 bn per year out of that $6.5bn total available budget. That would leave a little over $5 billion every year to fund Orion, COTS, CCDev, expanded ISS activities and R&D efforts. And I'm still not touching the President's $6bn/5yr increases.
To quote the President: "YES YOU CAN!"
Ross.
And I'm still not touching the President's $6bn/5yr increases.
Splended if this is true. All that is left now is for Mrs. Garver to tender her resignation.If only......
And I'm still not touching the President's $6bn/5yr increases.
Actually. That's only $3bn over five years.
See half of that money goes to CxP contract termination payouts. Read the documents on NASA's budgetary site if you don't believe me.
The launch costs are just a fraction of the cost of a payload. Or at least they ought to be!
Disagree. A payload that is 96% propellant and has no large engines is not expensive. How much do you think it would cost to get a hypergolic depot to the pad? Compare that to the cost of a launcher that could send that depot on a ballistic trajectory to EML1.
"What is the payload/mission for this HLV?"
There is also a possibility that there will be very little payloads for a HLV, because <20t launchers will fulfill our LEO or even some BEO needs sufficiently. Even if a HLV launches just once a year, it is important to have one, otherwise we are stuck in LEO putting together 20t lego bits.
Then what is the logic with preventing the shuttle contractors from taking the systems private for a Commercial HLV? The ULA Atlas, Delta and Orbital Minotaur are all derived from a similar program, taking USAF ICBM's and turning them into launchers, after all."What is the payload/mission for this HLV?"
There is also a possibility that there will be very little payloads for a HLV, because <20t launchers will fulfill our LEO or even some BEO needs sufficiently. Even if a HLV launches just once a year, it is important to have one, otherwise we are stuck in LEO putting together 20t lego bits.
What's wrong with 20t lego bits? Would you rather spend $20B on an HLV + $2B in maintenance or spend that money on spacecraft and payloads and let DOD pay the tab? Why not work with the existing international launch portfolio and spend the money on things to launch?
Even if it means you need a 2 or 4 person capsule. Who cares? If you need a 6 person mission you make two launches. Sure it would be nice to have 1 but not for $10B it's not. Plus if you use existing launchers every satellite or DOD launch is a free test flight. And when DOD decides to upgrade you get free upgrades.
For BEO just use fuel depots and multiple launches. We did this with Gemini Agena missions. Two launches. Dock in LEO and use the Agena to go higher. Easy. NASA doesn't have the budget to be in the rocket building business when there are plenty of launchers available. Let's start the space infrastructure business with fuel depots and spaceships. NASA can work with the international partners and industry to establish standard commodity interfaces.
Then what is the logic with preventing the shuttle contractors from taking the systems private for a Commercial HLV? The ULA Atlas, Delta and Orbital Minotaur are all derived from a similar program, taking USAF ICBM's and turning them into launchers, after all.
I don't have the figures, but I have heard yes, it could meet their launch cost per kg.Then what is the logic with preventing the shuttle contractors from taking the systems private for a Commercial HLV? The ULA Atlas, Delta and Orbital Minotaur are all derived from a similar program, taking USAF ICBM's and turning them into launchers, after all.
If we could give the whole STS system over the same way NASA did with Transhab to Bigelow, that would be great. But considering the high static costs, could anyone turn a profit within 2-5 years?
If J-130 was on the pad today, could it underbid a Atlas Delta Taurus II Falcon 9, and the Indian, Chinese, Russian, and European launchers? All while paying insurance and leases on all it's required facilities, things it doesn't have to do today?
Curious wording about the timing of submitting to the President. If it's an authorization bill, that's unlikely to get through Congress and to the President that soon. There's been reports about mid-month being timing for when the Senate authorizing committee might vote to send a bill to the floor. If it's not a bill, whatever the plan is would still need to be passed in some form by Congress.
Then what is the logic with preventing the shuttle contractors from taking the systems private for a Commercial HLV? The ULA Atlas, Delta and Orbital Minotaur are all derived from a similar program, taking USAF ICBM's and turning them into launchers, after all."What is the payload/mission for this HLV?"
There is also a possibility that there will be very little payloads for a HLV, because <20t launchers will fulfill our LEO or even some BEO needs sufficiently. Even if a HLV launches just once a year, it is important to have one, otherwise we are stuck in LEO putting together 20t lego bits.
What's wrong with 20t lego bits? Would you rather spend $20B on an HLV + $2B in maintenance or spend that money on spacecraft and payloads and let DOD pay the tab? Why not work with the existing international launch portfolio and spend the money on things to launch?
Even if it means you need a 2 or 4 person capsule. Who cares? If you need a 6 person mission you make two launches. Sure it would be nice to have 1 but not for $10B it's not. Plus if you use existing launchers every satellite or DOD launch is a free test flight. And when DOD decides to upgrade you get free upgrades.
For BEO just use fuel depots and multiple launches. We did this with Gemini Agena missions. Two launches. Dock in LEO and use the Agena to go higher. Easy. NASA doesn't have the budget to be in the rocket building business when there are plenty of launchers available. Let's start the space infrastructure business with fuel depots and spaceships. NASA can work with the international partners and industry to establish standard commodity interfaces.
The shuttles are up for bid anyway.
Then what is the logic with preventing the shuttle contractors from taking the systems private for a Commercial HLV? The ULA Atlas, Delta and Orbital Minotaur are all derived from a similar program, taking USAF ICBM's and turning them into launchers, after all.If we could give the whole STS system over the same way NASA did with Transhab to Bigelow, that would be great. But considering the high static costs, could anyone turn a profit within 2-5 years?
Then what is the logic with preventing the shuttle contractors from taking the systems private for a Commercial HLV? The ULA Atlas, Delta and Orbital Minotaur are all derived from a similar program, taking USAF ICBM's and turning them into launchers, after all.If we could give the whole STS system over the same way NASA did with Transhab to Bigelow, that would be great. But considering the high static costs, could anyone turn a profit within 2-5 years?
A topic of much discussion (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21991.0), which usually ends with one's head being handed to one's self. The Shuttle is a tough business case, but the real problem is that the people running it today have no desire to take it private. They're a product of decades of NASA financing and risk aversion, and just don't have the mojo to make it happen.
Does hope spring eternal or is it too little too late?
Here are a few excepts:
“The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee is proposing to save as many as 7,500 jobs of those who work on NASA's launch team by funding an additional space shuttle supply flight to the International Space Station a year from now. That mission would be followed immediately with the building of a heavy-lift rocket and spacecraft to replace the space shuttle.
“The committee's plan, due to be submitted to President Barack Obama July 15.”
“Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., told NBC News that NASA is on board with the plan that will, while the new heavy-lift rocket and spacecraft are being built, clear the way for commercial rockets to supply the space station.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38058920/ns/technology_and_science/
Correct as usual.
...
I suspect that if a shuttle privatization RFP did not include 1) blanket indemnity for USA and its parents by the US government against third-party liability, 2) "free" transfer of the orbiters, 3) "free" use of government facilities, and 4) a minimum guaranteed annual flight purchase rate (regardless of the actual launch rate), then Boeing and L-M would simply make a no-bid decision and quietly dismantle USA. But if an RFP did include such provisions, that the rest of the industry would be screaming bloody murder, and rightly so.
I further suspect that no other company has the resources to take on this job successfully if Boeing and L-M no-bid. They would need to have incredibly deep pockets to hire away the workforce (especially if Boeing and L-M decide to "cherry-pick" and keep the key personnel for their own projects, which has definitely happened before when incumbents lose contracts), and to purchase liability insurance (assuming no blanket indemnity).
I'm not even sure how the insurance industry would rationally price liability coverage for the shuttle. Until that price is known, the buyer is assuming a huge cost risk.
You think NASA is risk-averse now, even with sovereign immunity? You ain't seen nothing yet. Wait till you see how a private operator flies the shuttle *without* blanket indemnity. This isn't a matter of "mojo". It's a matter of weighing benefits and costs, and doing the right thing by your shareholders.
Does hope spring eternal or is it too little too late?
Here are a few excepts:
“The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee is proposing to save as many as 7,500 jobs of those who work on NASA's launch team by funding an additional space shuttle supply flight to the International Space Station a year from now. That mission would be followed immediately with the building of a heavy-lift rocket and spacecraft to replace the space shuttle.
“The committee's plan, due to be submitted to President Barack Obama July 15.”
“Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., told NBC News that NASA is on board with the plan that will, while the new heavy-lift rocket and spacecraft are being built, clear the way for commercial rockets to supply the space station.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38058920/ns/technology_and_science/
Authorizers love to promise all sorts of great things, even though they cannot commit to spending anything.
It is totally correct that this NASA Authorization bill is being coordinated with the Senate & House Appropriations Committees. As my own Congressman ,Alan B. Mollohan, stated during his Subcommittee's markup of the NASA Appropriations bill on June 29,2010, "Any major change in the direction of the nation's space program should come through an authorization passed by Congress & signed into law by the President"..."Until that program is defined through an enacted authorization,this subcommittee has no business in appropriating even more funding for uncertain program outcomes. Accordingly, this bill makes the funding for Human Space Exploration available only after the enactment of such authorization legislation." http://appropriations.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=661:2011-commerce-justice-science-and-science-appropriations-subcommittee-bill&catid=3:press-releases&Itemid=120Does hope spring eternal or is it too little too late?
Here are a few excepts:
“The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee is proposing to save as many as 7,500 jobs of those who work on NASA's launch team by funding an additional space shuttle supply flight to the International Space Station a year from now. That mission would be followed immediately with the building of a heavy-lift rocket and spacecraft to replace the space shuttle.
“The committee's plan, due to be submitted to President Barack Obama July 15.”
“Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., told NBC News that NASA is on board with the plan that will, while the new heavy-lift rocket and spacecraft are being built, clear the way for commercial rockets to supply the space station.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38058920/ns/technology_and_science/
Authorizers love to promise all sorts of great things, even though they cannot commit to spending anything.
This bill is being coordinated with the Appropriators...first time in memory, so your "paradigm" just may have to shift a little, though we shall see. That should become clear within a week of the Commerce mark-up.
Does hope spring eternal or is it too little too late?
Here are a few excepts:
“The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee is proposing to save as many as 7,500 jobs of those who work on NASA's launch team by funding an additional space shuttle supply flight to the International Space Station a year from now. That mission would be followed immediately with the building of a heavy-lift rocket and spacecraft to replace the space shuttle.
“The committee's plan, due to be submitted to President Barack Obama July 15.”
“Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., told NBC News that NASA is on board with the plan that will, while the new heavy-lift rocket and spacecraft are being built, clear the way for commercial rockets to supply the space station.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38058920/ns/technology_and_science/
Authorizers love to promise all sorts of great things, even though they cannot commit to spending anything.
"What is the payload/mission for this HLV?"
There is also a possibility that there will be very little payloads for a HLV, because <20t launchers will fulfill our LEO or even some BEO needs sufficiently. Even if a HLV launches just once a year, it is important to have one, otherwise we are stuck in LEO putting together 20t lego bits.
What's wrong with 20t lego bits? Would you rather spend $20B on an HLV + $2B in maintenance or spend that money on spacecraft and payloads and let DOD pay the tab? Why not work with the existing international launch portfolio and spend the money on things to launch?
Even if it means you need a 2 or 4 person capsule. Who cares? If you need a 6 person mission you make two launches. Sure it would be nice to have 1 but not for $10B it's not. Plus if you use existing launchers every satellite or DOD launch is a free test flight. And when DOD decides to upgrade you get free upgrades.
For BEO just use fuel depots and multiple launches. We did this with Gemini Agena missions. Two launches. Dock in LEO and use the Agena to go higher. Easy. NASA doesn't have the budget to be in the rocket building business when there are plenty of launchers available. Let's start the space infrastructure business with fuel depots and spaceships. NASA can work with the international partners and industry to establish standard commodity interfaces.
NASA does have the budget to be in the rocket building business. Its just that they wasted their money and energy on the wrong project. NASA needs to get back to the basics because if they don't they won't be able to build a HLV. I recommend modernizing a Saturn C-3 or equiv 35-40mt for LEO/ISS. That would mean restarting the Rocketdyne F-1 / F-1A program. You then apply those improvements for a HLV. That means the possibility of extending the Shuttle for two more missions along with the support from the Russians. That means dropping CxP entirely.
Although the idea of a single-stick 40mT launcher with 2 F-1s does seem quite attractive, evolved Atlas or Delta gets you to a 35 to 55 ton payload for a fraction of the dollar amount of recreating a '60s-era tech Saturn C-3:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19972.0
It isn't that restarting F-1A or building a C-3 like vehicle would be impossible, just much more costly than using what we currently have available. We have no existing production line for F-1As and no existing launch pad suitable for such a kerosene-fueled vehicle. Yes, it would be possible to add kerosene capabilities back to LC-39, and modify the VAB and the MLPs to process and launch a C-3. Yes, it would be possible to create a production line for C-3 stages at MAF, and a production line for F-1s in Canoga Park. But all this costs much more than incremental upgrades to currently-operational systems.
If 35 to 40 mT is all the capability we expect to need in the next 10 to 15 years, then ULA, Space-X, and OSC are the only domestic launch providers that NASA needs.
But if we are expecting to need throw weights well above that range for beyond-LEO missions, there are choices to make now.
One choice is to immediately proceed with some sort of SD-HLV in the 70 to 130mt range using as much currently existing technology and facilities as possible.
Another is to throw away the current STS heavy-lift infrastructure and manufacturing base and then spend many tens of billions to reconstitute a heavy-lift system 10 or more years from now.
I prefer not to see the same mistake made twice.NASA does have the budget to be in the rocket building business. Its just that they wasted their money and energy on the wrong project. NASA needs to get back to the basics because if they don't they won't be able to build a HLV. I recommend modernizing a Saturn C-3 or equiv 35-40mt for LEO/ISS. That would mean restarting the Rocketdyne F-1 / F-1A program. You then apply those improvements for a HLV. That means the possibility of extending the Shuttle for two more missions along with the support from the Russians. That means dropping CxP entirely.
The problem with the Atlas or the Delta is they were not designed to be human rated along with their inherited trajectory safety issues. The Saturn C3 equiv would be a modern lighter and stronger "60's era" craft retaining that aerodynamic stability and trajectory friendly design. This would be a dedicated LEO craft. NASA and its workforce would be better off building a new craft with those inherited and proven designs instead of scraping the barrel. Now I have not seen any detailed information regarding the Boeing CST-100 capsule. If you would happen to have any information ( & or link ) would be greatly appreciated. Oh, and I don't believe NASA would have any pad issues out of the ordinary on this. I know this is a back and forth issue ( chaos, crisis mode ) but I look at this as what does the patient (NASA) need to get back in the game.
Incorrect. Atlas V has been built for human flight, it was designed for the OSP program don't forget. It is prepared and ready for human flight, you just need a crew capsule and crew access. The rocket is not the problem.
The problem with the Atlas or the Delta is they were not designed to be human rated along with their inherited trajectory safety issues. The Saturn C3 equiv would be a modern lighter and stronger "60's era" craft retaining that aerodynamic stability and trajectory friendly design. This would be a dedicated LEO craft. NASA and its workforce would be better off building a new craft with those inherited and proven designs instead of scraping the barrel. Now I have not seen any detailed information regarding the Boeing CST-100 capsule. If you would happen to have any information ( & or link ) would be greatly appreciated. Oh, and I don't believe NASA would have any pad issues out of the ordinary on this. I know this is a back and forth issue ( chaos, crisis mode ) but I look at this as what does the patient (NASA) need to get back in the game.
The problem with the Atlas or the Delta is they were not designed to be human rated along with their inherited trajectory safety issues. The Saturn C3 equiv would be a modern lighter and stronger "60's era" craft retaining that aerodynamic stability and trajectory friendly design. This would be a dedicated LEO craft. NASA and its workforce would be better off building a new craft with those inherited and proven designs instead of scraping the barrel. Now I have not seen any detailed information regarding the Boeing CST-100 capsule. If you would happen to have any information ( & or link ) would be greatly appreciated. Oh, and I don't believe NASA would have any pad issues out of the ordinary on this.
I want to thank everyone for their comments on the Delta and Atlas including the politics and the reports but if that were the case then it should have been done already myths not withstanding. In fact those decisions should have been made a long time ago. Every time I hear about SpaceX though, its oh poor :-[ Scotty. But kidding aside I haven't heard a convincing argument not to build a modernized Saturn C3 considering that we just blew 8 billion on CxP. If we had the existing capacity we would be doing it and not relying on the Russians to do it for us or buying their engines. Tell me it can't be done in three years. :)It can't be done in 3 years. We're looking at 2 years just to get some sample F-1's for testing. Add 2-3 years of testing for these engines, and barring any problems you *may* have an engine ready, after a few billion in R&D.
I want to thank everyone for their comments on the Delta and Atlas including the politics and the reports but if that were the case then it should have been done already myths not withstanding. In fact those decisions should have been made a long time ago. Every time I hear about SpaceX though, its oh poor :-[ Scotty. But kidding aside I haven't heard a convincing argument not to build a modernized Saturn C3 considering that we just blew 8 billion on CxP. If we had the existing capacity we would be doing it and not relying on the Russians to do it for us or buying their engines. Tell me it can't be done in three years. :)It can't be done in 3 years. We're looking at 2 years just to get some sample F-1's for testing. Add 2-3 years of testing for these engines, and barring any problems you *may* have an engine ready, after a few billion in R&D.
I want to thank everyone for their comments on the Delta and Atlas including the politics and the reports but if that were the case then it should have been done already myths not withstanding. In fact those decisions should have been made a long time ago. Every time I hear about SpaceX though, its oh poor :-[ Scotty. But kidding aside I haven't heard a convincing argument not to build a modernized Saturn C3. Tell me it can't be done in three years. :)
51D Mascot-
Could you please clarify what it is the reporter is confused about, the process and/or what goes to the Senate committee on the 15th?, and where did this extra shuttle flight thing come from?
Thanks in advance...
There is a thread dedicated to the CST 100 capsule. Assumed LV is Atlas V.Although the idea of a single-stick 40mT launcher with 2 F-1s does seem quite attractive, evolved Atlas or Delta gets you to a 35 to 55 ton payload for a fraction of the dollar amount of recreating a '60s-era tech Saturn C-3:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19972.0
It isn't that restarting F-1A or building a C-3 like vehicle would be impossible, just much more costly than using what we currently have available. We have no existing production line for F-1As and no existing launch pad suitable for such a kerosene-fueled vehicle. Yes, it would be possible to add kerosene capabilities back to LC-39, and modify the VAB and the MLPs to process and launch a C-3. Yes, it would be possible to create a production line for C-3 stages at MAF, and a production line for F-1s in Canoga Park. But all this costs much more than incremental upgrades to currently-operational systems.
If 35 to 40 mT is all the capability we expect to need in the next 10 to 15 years, then ULA, Space-X, and OSC are the only domestic launch providers that NASA needs.
But if we are expecting to need throw weights well above that range for beyond-LEO missions, there are choices to make now.
One choice is to immediately proceed with some sort of SD-HLV in the 70 to 130mt range using as much currently existing technology and facilities as possible.
Another is to throw away the current STS heavy-lift infrastructure and manufacturing base and then spend many tens of billions to reconstitute a heavy-lift system 10 or more years from now.
I prefer not to see the same mistake made twice.NASA does have the budget to be in the rocket building business. Its just that they wasted their money and energy on the wrong project. NASA needs to get back to the basics because if they don't they won't be able to build a HLV. I recommend modernizing a Saturn C-3 or equiv 35-40mt for LEO/ISS. That would mean restarting the Rocketdyne F-1 / F-1A program. You then apply those improvements for a HLV. That means the possibility of extending the Shuttle for two more missions along with the support from the Russians. That means dropping CxP entirely.
The problem with the Atlas or the Delta is they were not designed to be human rated along with their inherited trajectory safety issues. The Saturn C3 equiv would be a modern lighter and stronger "60's era" craft retaining that aerodynamic stability and trajectory friendly design. This would be a dedicated LEO craft. NASA and its workforce would be better off building a new craft with those inherited and proven designs instead of scraping the barrel. Now I have not seen any detailed information regarding the Boeing CST-100 capsule. If you would happen to have any information ( & or link ) would be greatly appreciated. Oh, and I don't believe NASA would have any pad issues out of the ordinary on this. I know this is a back and forth issue ( chaos, crisis mode ) but I look at this as what does the patient (NASA) need to get back in the game.
Exactly my point.I want to thank everyone for their comments on the Delta and Atlas including the politics and the reports but if that were the case then it should have been done already myths not withstanding. In fact those decisions should have been made a long time ago. Every time I hear about SpaceX though, its oh poor :-[ Scotty. But kidding aside I haven't heard a convincing argument not to build a modernized Saturn C3. Tell me it can't be done in three years. :)
Wrong, politics have been the reason for the non use of Delta and Atlas for Constellation. They were going to be used for OSP, and now there are Dreamchaser, CST-100, and others.
1. A modernized Saturn C3 is not needed and would be just another waste like Ares I There are 3 vehicle that already exist in the same performance range. EELV can do the job
2. NASA does not need to be designing or building its own vehicles.
3. It can't be done in 3 years, it would take 6 months or more just for the procurement process (RFP and source selection). Rocketdyne would not be guaranteed the contract, since there is no existing production. Aerojet and Spacex would want to compete.
But even if Rocketdyne got the contract tomorrow, it would be longer than 3 years. All the infrastructure for production has to be recreated.
Answer already came from Rocketdyne, they did a survey to see if F-1 could be restarted in 1992. It was an expensive proposal, and would take years.I want to thank everyone for their comments on the Delta and Atlas including the politics and the reports but if that were the case then it should have been done already myths not withstanding. In fact those decisions should have been made a long time ago. Every time I hear about SpaceX though, its oh poor :-[ Scotty. But kidding aside I haven't heard a convincing argument not to build a modernized Saturn C3 considering that we just blew 8 billion on CxP. If we had the existing capacity we would be doing it and not relying on the Russians to do it for us or buying their engines. Tell me it can't be done in three years. :)It can't be done in 3 years. We're looking at 2 years just to get some sample F-1's for testing. Add 2-3 years of testing for these engines, and barring any problems you *may* have an engine ready, after a few billion in R&D.
Thanks for the input Downix but I think the answer we need should come from Rocketdyne.
You would be better served with RS84 or BFE (based on RS 84).Answer already came from Rocketdyne, they did a survey to see if F-1 could be restarted in 1992. It was an expensive proposal, and would take years.I want to thank everyone for their comments on the Delta and Atlas including the politics and the reports but if that were the case then it should have been done already myths not withstanding. In fact those decisions should have been made a long time ago. Every time I hear about SpaceX though, its oh poor :-[ Scotty. But kidding aside I haven't heard a convincing argument not to build a modernized Saturn C3 considering that we just blew 8 billion on CxP. If we had the existing capacity we would be doing it and not relying on the Russians to do it for us or buying their engines. Tell me it can't be done in three years. :)It can't be done in 3 years. We're looking at 2 years just to get some sample F-1's for testing. Add 2-3 years of testing for these engines, and barring any problems you *may* have an engine ready, after a few billion in R&D.
Thanks for the input Downix but I think the answer we need should come from Rocketdyne.
Also, any clue as to why DOD wants a new kerolox engine? EELV costs shouldn't be rising THAT much.............
It isn't that restarting F-1A or building a C-3 like vehicle would be impossible, just much more costly than using what we currently have available. We have no existing production line for F-1As and no existing launch pad suitable for such a kerosene-fueled vehicle. Yes, it would be possible to add kerosene capabilities back to LC-39, and modify the VAB and the MLPs to process and launch a C-3. Yes, it would be possible to create a production line for C-3 stages at MAF, and a production line for F-1s in Canoga Park. But all this costs much more than incremental upgrades to currently-operational systems.
If 35 to 40 mT is all the capability we expect to need in the next 10 to 15 years, then ULA, Space-X, and OSC are the only domestic launch providers that NASA needs.NASA does have the budget to be in the rocket building business. Its just that they wasted their money and energy on the wrong project. NASA needs to get back to the basics because if they don't they won't be able to build a HLV. I recommend modernizing a Saturn C-3 or equiv 35-40mt for LEO/ISS. That would mean restarting the Rocketdyne F-1 / F-1A program. You then apply those improvements for a HLV. That means the possibility of extending the Shuttle for two more missions along with the support from the Russians. That means dropping CxP entirely.
1. Space-X won't be ready for a long time and
2. what of the cost estimates for ULA, and OSC and Jim stating that EELV can do the job?
3. We really do not have a need ( or the design ) for a HLV ( 100 -150mt ) at this time except to save jobs and there is no defined plan or program target date by this administration.
4. We would definitely not be wasting taxpayer dollars on a Saturn C3 equiv compared to what happened to CxP. The problem with the Shuttle program and CxP is they expected to much and ended up paying for it in more ways than one.
Answer already came from Rocketdyne, they did a survey to see if F-1 could be restarted in 1992. It was an expensive proposal, and would take years.I want to thank everyone for their comments on the Delta and Atlas including the politics and the reports but if that were the case then it should have been done already myths not withstanding. In fact those decisions should have been made a long time ago. Every time I hear about SpaceX though, its oh poor :-[ Scotty. But kidding aside I haven't heard a convincing argument not to build a modernized Saturn C3 considering that we just blew 8 billion on CxP. If we had the existing capacity we would be doing it and not relying on the Russians to do it for us or buying their engines. Tell me it can't be done in three years. :)It can't be done in 3 years. We're looking at 2 years just to get some sample F-1's for testing. Add 2-3 years of testing for these engines, and barring any problems you *may* have an engine ready, after a few billion in R&D.
Thanks for the input Downix but I think the answer we need should come from Rocketdyne.
Makes sense. But if they want it they should fund it. NASA has enough problems.....
Also, any clue as to why DOD wants a new kerolox engine? EELV costs shouldn't be rising THAT much.............
They are thinking 10 or more years into the future
Disagree with 3. But you know my reasons :) I am on the same page with the rest.
1. Space-X won't be ready for a long time and
2. what of the cost estimates for ULA, and OSC and Jim stating that EELV can do the job?
3. We really do not have a need ( or the design ) for a HLV ( 100 -150mt ) at this time except to save jobs and there is no defined plan or program target date by this administration.
4. We would definitely not be wasting taxpayer dollars on a Saturn C3 equiv compared to what happened to CxP. The problem with the Shuttle program and CxP is they expected to much and ended up paying for it in more ways than one.
1. Wrong, they will ready quicker than anything NASA can put together.
2. Cheaper than than anything NASA can put together. And quicker. (EELV is Delta IV and Atlas V, therefore ULA)
3. No need
4. CXP is water under the bridge. No money for C-3 is available and again, it would still be waste since it is a duplication.
These senators seem to feel that filling the gap with Soyuz and closing the gap with commercial crew taxis would be an acceptable solution for United States human spaceflight except for the effects it would have on KSC and JSC operations. They seem to think building heavy lift "immediately" lets them somewhat preserve the workforces and infrastructures at those centers.
If "building immediately" meant "three years to FOC", would it be at all reasonable to put those centers on hold for that length of time?
136 will be 2012 if it happens. Or late 2011. More likely 2012. J130 target is 2012-2014.These senators seem to feel that filling the gap with Soyuz and closing the gap with commercial crew taxis would be an acceptable solution for United States human spaceflight except for the effects it would have on KSC and JSC operations. They seem to think building heavy lift "immediately" lets them somewhat preserve the workforces and infrastructures at those centers.
If "building immediately" meant "three years to FOC", would it be at all reasonable to put those centers on hold for that length of time?
Hmmmm.....if we had a simple "phase 1" SDLV like J-130 with a first test flight in not much more than 36 months - say August 2013 - and an STS-135 in Feb 2011, and maybe even an STS-136 with ET-94 in Summer 2011, that would work out pretty well. Two years downtime to do infrastructure mods, develop operational procedures, train, test, and get ready to fly. It might even be a bit tight. There would no getting around the already expected job losses related to Orbiter and SSME processing, but perhaps plenty of other work in getting ready for the new program. This sounds like a good way of making use of the FY2011 "21st Century Spaceport" line-item, instead of some pipe dream of trying to refit LC39 for commercial crew use by vendors that don't want to be anywhere near that side of the cape.
Thanks for this and the other details in later posts. Good updates.Curious wording about the timing of submitting to the President. If it's an authorization bill, that's unlikely to get through Congress and to the President that soon. There's been reports about mid-month being timing for when the Senate authorizing committee might vote to send a bill to the floor. If it's not a bill, whatever the plan is would still need to be passed in some form by Congress.
Chalk it up to reporter confusion...Jay knows a lot about space, but not so much about the legislative process. The 15th is the date set for Committee Mark-up of a bill, where it will consider any proposed amendments, then vote to report it to the Senate (or not) as amended. Then it gets in line for consideration by the full Senate, presumably via a unanimous consent procedure, since floor time (for debate, etc.) is VERY limited. Then, of course, there's the issue of House action, either on a Senate-passed bill or a version of their own, followed by, if needed, a joint Senate-House Conference to iron out differences, and acceptance of that outcome by both houses after that, so quite a few steps before being "presented" to the President. (There IS the possibility, as well, that, at some point along the line, the White House/President may engage in discussions/negotiations with the Congress, so it is "possible" that the final language will be "acceptable".) But I can tell you, as of this moment, the final draft language of the bill in question has not been completed.
Disagree with 3. But you know my reasons :) I am on the same page with the rest.
1. Space-X won't be ready for a long time and
2. what of the cost estimates for ULA, and OSC and Jim stating that EELV can do the job?
3. We really do not have a need ( or the design ) for a HLV ( 100 -150mt ) at this time except to save jobs and there is no defined plan or program target date by this administration.
4. We would definitely not be wasting taxpayer dollars on a Saturn C3 equiv compared to what happened to CxP. The problem with the Shuttle program and CxP is they expected to much and ended up paying for it in more ways than one.
1. Wrong, they will ready quicker than anything NASA can put together.
2. Cheaper than than anything NASA can put together. And quicker. (EELV is Delta IV and Atlas V, therefore ULA)
3. No need
4. CXP is water under the bridge. No money for C-3 is available and again, it would still be waste since it is a duplication.
51D Mascot-
Could you please clarify what it is the reporter is confused about, the process and/or what goes to the Senate committee on the 15th?, and where did this extra shuttle flight thing come from?
Thanks in advance...
The confusion was based on the article saying that on July 15th the Commerce Committee would "present to President" a bill. What I was trying to clarify was just that the phrasing of presenting something to the President implies that the Congress has completed action on a bill and sent it to the White House/President for action (signing into law or vetoing). The date of July 15th is for the Senate Committee's planned "mark-up" of a NASA Authorization Bill, which is the first formal step (after introduction, usually) in the legislative process that will (hopefully) result in sending something to the President later this summer.
The additional shuttle flight is the Launch-on-Need flight currently shown on the manifest as a contingency flight (335/STS-135); Senator Hutchison has been vocal in wanting that turned into a "fully-approved and manifested flight" for some time, and Senator Nelson has indicated he now is supportive of doing that; NASA could simply make that call administratively, but they need additional funding to do that in FY 2011, and up to now senior NASA officials and the White House have resisted that idea; hence the talk about putting language in the NASA Authorization bill that would REQUIRE the addition of that flight, likely on the basis of certain requirements being met, etc.
Looking through this thread, I still don't see answers to two important questions. First, how will this HLV be selected? What payloads and missions will this HLV have? I grant that Congress can fund down the road a hastily put together plan to use an HLV for some interesting activity. It's just troubling that we don't have an existing need for an HLV (well, aside from the little bit of ISS workload) yet here's a proposal to immediately build one.
The first question is also troubling. Last I checked, we don't have an obvious choice. Sure we have two good SD LV choices (Direct and "not" Shuttle C), but someone has to make that choice. Last time that happened, we ended up with Ares I. What's to keep the decision process from coming up with another turkey?
Would you develop a payload for an HLV without a commitment that one would be there?Looking through this thread, I still don't see answers to two important questions. First, how will this HLV be selected? What payloads and missions will this HLV have? I grant that Congress can fund down the road a hastily put together plan to use an HLV for some interesting activity. It's just troubling that we don't have an existing need for an HLV (well, aside from the little bit of ISS workload) yet here's a proposal to immediately build one.
The first question is also troubling. Last I checked, we don't have an obvious choice. Sure we have two good SD LV choices (Direct and "not" Shuttle C), but someone has to make that choice. Last time that happened, we ended up with Ares I. What's to keep the decision process from coming up with another turkey?
That's true. There is not a capable design ( stress that ) or need for a HLV because they are not designing or have any conception of what those payloads are going to be. That's how turkey's are born... :o
How many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?
No, those are:
How many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?
24
4 Titan IV
8 Atlas II
1 Titan II
11 Delta II
Would you develop a payload for an HLV without a commitment that one would be there?Looking through this thread, I still don't see answers to two important questions. First, how will this HLV be selected? What payloads and missions will this HLV have? I grant that Congress can fund down the road a hastily put together plan to use an HLV for some interesting activity. It's just troubling that we don't have an existing need for an HLV (well, aside from the little bit of ISS workload) yet here's a proposal to immediately build one.
The first question is also troubling. Last I checked, we don't have an obvious choice. Sure we have two good SD LV choices (Direct and "not" Shuttle C), but someone has to make that choice. Last time that happened, we ended up with Ares I. What's to keep the decision process from coming up with another turkey?
That's true. There is not a capable design ( stress that ) or need for a HLV because they are not designing or have any conception of what those payloads are going to be. That's how turkey's are born... :o
How many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?
1) So, since this scenario does not yet have an HLV agreement in place, just a discussion of the desire for *a* HLV, without a commitment to build or even finalize plans for one; how exactly would you know the capability?Would you develop a payload for an HLV without a commitment that one would be there?Looking through this thread, I still don't see answers to two important questions. First, how will this HLV be selected? What payloads and missions will this HLV have? I grant that Congress can fund down the road a hastily put together plan to use an HLV for some interesting activity. It's just troubling that we don't have an existing need for an HLV (well, aside from the little bit of ISS workload) yet here's a proposal to immediately build one.
The first question is also troubling. Last I checked, we don't have an obvious choice. Sure we have two good SD LV choices (Direct and "not" Shuttle C), but someone has to make that choice. Last time that happened, we ended up with Ares I. What's to keep the decision process from coming up with another turkey?
That's true. There is not a capable design ( stress that ) or need for a HLV because they are not designing or have any conception of what those payloads are going to be. That's how turkey's are born... :o
How many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?
Q:1) Yes. For I would already know the HLV lifting capability.
Q:2) I do not know exactly the number of Delta IV payloads in 1997. I don't mind trick questions.
I don't expect our method to reach LEO to change dramatically in the next 50 years if that's your question. I see Congress grasping at straws right now considering the example they have to follow.
No, those are:
How many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?
24
4 Titan IV
8 Atlas II
1 Titan II
11 Delta II
4 Titan IV
8 Atlas II
1 Titan II
11 Delta II
Nobody in 1997 was planning on launching payloads on a Delta IV, especially not the Delta IV Heavy... because there wasn't one. You don't plan for a mission to use a particular solution until you have that solution available. I could name projects of my former employer that would fit right up to a 45mT launcher, but until such a launcher is announced with a "ready by" date, they remain paper projects for indeterminate future use.
And what solution would that be, hmm? There are no 45mT payload carriers being developed. No carrier, no mission.No, those are:
How many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?
24
4 Titan IV
8 Atlas II
1 Titan II
11 Delta II
4 Titan IV
8 Atlas II
1 Titan II
11 Delta II
Nobody in 1997 was planning on launching payloads on a Delta IV, especially not the Delta IV Heavy... because there wasn't one. You don't plan for a mission to use a particular solution until you have that solution available. I could name projects of my former employer that would fit right up to a 45mT launcher, but until such a launcher is announced with a "ready by" date, they remain paper projects for indeterminate future use.
You can plan a mission if you have the solution.
1) So, since this scenario does not yet have an HLV agreement in place, just a discussion of the desire for *a* HLV, without a commitment to build or even finalize plans for one; how exactly would you know the capability?Would you develop a payload for an HLV without a commitment that one would be there?Looking through this thread, I still don't see answers to two important questions. First, how will this HLV be selected? What payloads and missions will this HLV have? I grant that Congress can fund down the road a hastily put together plan to use an HLV for some interesting activity. It's just troubling that we don't have an existing need for an HLV (well, aside from the little bit of ISS workload) yet here's a proposal to immediately build one.
The first question is also troubling. Last I checked, we don't have an obvious choice. Sure we have two good SD LV choices (Direct and "not" Shuttle C), but someone has to make that choice. Last time that happened, we ended up with Ares I. What's to keep the decision process from coming up with another turkey?
That's true. There is not a capable design ( stress that ) or need for a HLV because they are not designing or have any conception of what those payloads are going to be. That's how turkey's are born... :o
How many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?
Q:1) Yes. For I would already know the HLV lifting capability.
Q:2) I do not know exactly the number of Delta IV payloads in 1997. I don't mind trick questions.
I don't expect our method to reach LEO to change dramatically in the next 50 years if that's your question. I see Congress grasping at straws right now considering the example they have to follow.
2) simple, 0, since the Delta IV was not announced until the year later. Again, no launcher, no payloads.
And what solution would that be, hmm? There are no 45mT payload carriers being developed. No carrier, no mission.No, those are:
How many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?
24
4 Titan IV
8 Atlas II
1 Titan II
11 Delta II
4 Titan IV
8 Atlas II
1 Titan II
11 Delta II
Nobody in 1997 was planning on launching payloads on a Delta IV, especially not the Delta IV Heavy... because there wasn't one. You don't plan for a mission to use a particular solution until you have that solution available. I could name projects of my former employer that would fit right up to a 45mT launcher, but until such a launcher is announced with a "ready by" date, they remain paper projects for indeterminate future use.
You can plan a mission if you have the solution.
You do, where? You should announce it to the world, as nobody right now offers such lift services.And what solution would that be, hmm? There are no 45mT payload carriers being developed. No carrier, no mission.No, those are:
How many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?
24
4 Titan IV
8 Atlas II
1 Titan II
11 Delta II
4 Titan IV
8 Atlas II
1 Titan II
11 Delta II
Nobody in 1997 was planning on launching payloads on a Delta IV, especially not the Delta IV Heavy... because there wasn't one. You don't plan for a mission to use a particular solution until you have that solution available. I could name projects of my former employer that would fit right up to a 45mT launcher, but until such a launcher is announced with a "ready by" date, they remain paper projects for indeterminate future use.
You can plan a mission if you have the solution.
I already have a 45mt carrier. I think your getting ahead of yourself Downix.
Launchers do not appear overnight. Payloads do not appear overnight. You cannot sit and ask "where are the payloads for this launcher" until you have agreed to make this launcher available! No company, entity, organization or group will make plans for it until there is an agreement to make it.1) So, since this scenario does not yet have an HLV agreement in place, just a discussion of the desire for *a* HLV, without a commitment to build or even finalize plans for one; how exactly would you know the capability?Would you develop a payload for an HLV without a commitment that one would be there?Looking through this thread, I still don't see answers to two important questions. First, how will this HLV be selected? What payloads and missions will this HLV have? I grant that Congress can fund down the road a hastily put together plan to use an HLV for some interesting activity. It's just troubling that we don't have an existing need for an HLV (well, aside from the little bit of ISS workload) yet here's a proposal to immediately build one.
The first question is also troubling. Last I checked, we don't have an obvious choice. Sure we have two good SD LV choices (Direct and "not" Shuttle C), but someone has to make that choice. Last time that happened, we ended up with Ares I. What's to keep the decision process from coming up with another turkey?
That's true. There is not a capable design ( stress that ) or need for a HLV because they are not designing or have any conception of what those payloads are going to be. That's how turkey's are born... :o
How many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?
Q:1) Yes. For I would already know the HLV lifting capability.
Q:2) I do not know exactly the number of Delta IV payloads in 1997. I don't mind trick questions.
I don't expect our method to reach LEO to change dramatically in the next 50 years if that's your question. I see Congress grasping at straws right now considering the example they have to follow.
2) simple, 0, since the Delta IV was not announced until the year later. Again, no launcher, no payloads.
Oh, there would already be an agreement and a commitment but that construction would not be necessary at this time. Let me put this in simpler terms. Do we have at this time a safe and reliable 35-40mt crew vehicle? Lets say that you have a 150mt SLV ready to load. What would you put on it? ( except Barney Frank of course )
You do, where? You should announce it to the world, as nobody right now offers such lift services.And what solution would that be, hmm? There are no 45mT payload carriers being developed. No carrier, no mission.No, those are:
How many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?
24
4 Titan IV
8 Atlas II
1 Titan II
11 Delta II
4 Titan IV
8 Atlas II
1 Titan II
11 Delta II
Nobody in 1997 was planning on launching payloads on a Delta IV, especially not the Delta IV Heavy... because there wasn't one. You don't plan for a mission to use a particular solution until you have that solution available. I could name projects of my former employer that would fit right up to a 45mT launcher, but until such a launcher is announced with a "ready by" date, they remain paper projects for indeterminate future use.
You can plan a mission if you have the solution.
I already have a 45mt carrier. I think your getting ahead of yourself Downix.
I am talking a real payload, and you are talking nonsense.
Launchers do not appear overnight. Payloads do not appear overnight. You cannot sit and ask "where are the payloads for this launcher" until you have agreed to make this launcher available! No company, entity, organization or group will make plans for it until there is an agreement to make it.1) So, since this scenario does not yet have an HLV agreement in place, just a discussion of the desire for *a* HLV, without a commitment to build or even finalize plans for one; how exactly would you know the capability?Would you develop a payload for an HLV without a commitment that one would be there?Looking through this thread, I still don't see answers to two important questions. First, how will this HLV be selected? What payloads and missions will this HLV have? I grant that Congress can fund down the road a hastily put together plan to use an HLV for some interesting activity. It's just troubling that we don't have an existing need for an HLV (well, aside from the little bit of ISS workload) yet here's a proposal to immediately build one.
The first question is also troubling. Last I checked, we don't have an obvious choice. Sure we have two good SD LV choices (Direct and "not" Shuttle C), but someone has to make that choice. Last time that happened, we ended up with Ares I. What's to keep the decision process from coming up with another turkey?
That's true. There is not a capable design ( stress that ) or need for a HLV because they are not designing or have any conception of what those payloads are going to be. That's how turkey's are born... :o
How many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?
Q:1) Yes. For I would already know the HLV lifting capability.
Q:2) I do not know exactly the number of Delta IV payloads in 1997. I don't mind trick questions.
I don't expect our method to reach LEO to change dramatically in the next 50 years if that's your question. I see Congress grasping at straws right now considering the example they have to follow.
2) simple, 0, since the Delta IV was not announced until the year later. Again, no launcher, no payloads.
Oh, there would already be an agreement and a commitment but that construction would not be necessary at this time. Let me put this in simpler terms. Do we have at this time a safe and reliable 35-40mt crew vehicle? Lets say that you have a 150mt SLV ready to load. What would you put on it? ( except Barney Frank of course )
As I said, I know of at least 1 45mT payload sitting on paper, ready for the day that the rocket to loft it arrives. It has been sitting there, for over a decade. Now think, this is 1 payload, from one company. How do you know that more companies, with more payloads, would not jump at a 40mT, a 50mT, a 100mT?
You need the launcher, the cheap end of the whole enterprise, before you even think about investing into the real expensive component, what you loft up there.
You seem to be struggling with this. How about simpler:You do, where? You should announce it to the world, as nobody right now offers such lift services.And what solution would that be, hmm? There are no 45mT payload carriers being developed. No carrier, no mission.No, those are:
How many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?
24
4 Titan IV
8 Atlas II
1 Titan II
11 Delta II
4 Titan IV
8 Atlas II
1 Titan II
11 Delta II
Nobody in 1997 was planning on launching payloads on a Delta IV, especially not the Delta IV Heavy... because there wasn't one. You don't plan for a mission to use a particular solution until you have that solution available. I could name projects of my former employer that would fit right up to a 45mT launcher, but until such a launcher is announced with a "ready by" date, they remain paper projects for indeterminate future use.
You can plan a mission if you have the solution.
I already have a 45mt carrier. I think your getting ahead of yourself Downix.
I am talking a real payload, and you are talking nonsense.
I am talking about a real payload and I am talking about the proper lift design and capability. Why don't we back it up a tad and look at the current situation. We know that Washington does not have a plan for NASA for manned missions. They don't even have a concept. Now, they want to build a SHL and they don't even know what there going to put on it. Are you with me so far? Now look at the history of CxP.
What payloads and missions will this HLV have?Ross, Chuck, and crew have some good suggestions for effectively using an HLV in a tight budget environment....Apollo 8 style mission with Orion + DIVUS, Hubble replacements (plural) and big spy-sats, new/replacement ISS modules, and eventually BEO flexible-path missions with a minimum-cost EDS using RL-10s and the ET tooling.
Sure we have two good SD LV choices (Direct and "not" Shuttle C), but someone has to make that choice. Last time that happened, we ended up with Ares I. What's to keep the decision process from coming up with another turkey?Indeed. The last time around Congress specified "Shuttle-Derived", and was expecting a "Safe, Simple, Soon" Ares I for less than $1 billion by 2010 to be followed by a very-directly shuttle-derived NLS-style Ares V to get back to the moon before 2020.
Already said that. I know of one payload from direct experience. There are others, they just need the lifter.Launchers do not appear overnight. Payloads do not appear overnight. You cannot sit and ask "where are the payloads for this launcher" until you have agreed to make this launcher available! No company, entity, organization or group will make plans for it until there is an agreement to make it.1) So, since this scenario does not yet have an HLV agreement in place, just a discussion of the desire for *a* HLV, without a commitment to build or even finalize plans for one; how exactly would you know the capability?Would you develop a payload for an HLV without a commitment that one would be there?Looking through this thread, I still don't see answers to two important questions. First, how will this HLV be selected? What payloads and missions will this HLV have? I grant that Congress can fund down the road a hastily put together plan to use an HLV for some interesting activity. It's just troubling that we don't have an existing need for an HLV (well, aside from the little bit of ISS workload) yet here's a proposal to immediately build one.
The first question is also troubling. Last I checked, we don't have an obvious choice. Sure we have two good SD LV choices (Direct and "not" Shuttle C), but someone has to make that choice. Last time that happened, we ended up with Ares I. What's to keep the decision process from coming up with another turkey?
That's true. There is not a capable design ( stress that ) or need for a HLV because they are not designing or have any conception of what those payloads are going to be. That's how turkey's are born... :o
How many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?
Q:1) Yes. For I would already know the HLV lifting capability.
Q:2) I do not know exactly the number of Delta IV payloads in 1997. I don't mind trick questions.
I don't expect our method to reach LEO to change dramatically in the next 50 years if that's your question. I see Congress grasping at straws right now considering the example they have to follow.
2) simple, 0, since the Delta IV was not announced until the year later. Again, no launcher, no payloads.
Oh, there would already be an agreement and a commitment but that construction would not be necessary at this time. Let me put this in simpler terms. Do we have at this time a safe and reliable 35-40mt crew vehicle? Lets say that you have a 150mt SLV ready to load. What would you put on it? ( except Barney Frank of course )
As I said, I know of at least 1 45mT payload sitting on paper, ready for the day that the rocket to loft it arrives. It has been sitting there, for over a decade. Now think, this is 1 payload, from one company. How do you know that more companies, with more payloads, would not jump at a 40mT, a 50mT, a 100mT?
You need the launcher, the cheap end of the whole enterprise, before you even think about investing into the real expensive component, what you loft up there.
Downix. That's not what I asked. If it was your call, what would you put on it?
You seem to be struggling with this. How about simpler:You do, where? You should announce it to the world, as nobody right now offers such lift services.And what solution would that be, hmm? There are no 45mT payload carriers being developed. No carrier, no mission.No, those are:
How many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?
24
4 Titan IV
8 Atlas II
1 Titan II
11 Delta II
4 Titan IV
8 Atlas II
1 Titan II
11 Delta II
Nobody in 1997 was planning on launching payloads on a Delta IV, especially not the Delta IV Heavy... because there wasn't one. You don't plan for a mission to use a particular solution until you have that solution available. I could name projects of my former employer that would fit right up to a 45mT launcher, but until such a launcher is announced with a "ready by" date, they remain paper projects for indeterminate future use.
You can plan a mission if you have the solution.
I already have a 45mt carrier. I think your getting ahead of yourself Downix.
I am talking a real payload, and you are talking nonsense.
I am talking about a real payload and I am talking about the proper lift design and capability. Why don't we back it up a tad and look at the current situation. We know that Washington does not have a plan for NASA for manned missions. They don't even have a concept. Now, they want to build a SHL and they don't even know what there going to put on it. Are you with me so far? Now look at the history of CxP.
To ask what payloads will go on the SHL is putting the cart before the horse, literally. You need a HLV (or at least a solid plan for one) before you build the payloads for it.
You seem to be struggling even worse now. I cannot get any simpler than the cart and horse example, anyone else have one?You are spouting nonsense here.
*edit* egads, I feel like Jim right now!
Don't really care about what that means Downix.
Q: Why did Ares 1 end up the way it did?
Oh well. Give it some thought Downix. Hint: Remember the Spruce Goose?
The reason the focus on payloads is so important is because that is the whole frakking point of any kind of launch vehicle. Around here, some people make it sound like payloads only exist as something to justify launch vehicles and that launch vehicles are practically an end to themselves.Precisely. The launch vehicle only enables the payload.
You seem to be struggling even worse now. I cannot get any simpler than the cart and horse example, anyone else have one?You are spouting nonsense here.
*edit* egads, I feel like Jim right now!
Don't really care about what that means Downix.
Q: Why did Ares 1 end up the way it did?
Oh well. Give it some thought Downix. Hint: Remember the Spruce Goose?
This is not the thread to discuss Ares I and its evolution, we have a whole category for that. And that is off-topic to boot.
As for the Hercules flying boat, commonly called the Spruce Goose, payloads were, in fact, ordered for it once it was procured (how many other planes dictated the width of a medium battle tank?). If it had flown, it would have had plenty of cargo. So, your argument collapses by your own examples. Especially since three planes arrived to fill the same cargo transporation needs, the An-225, the Boeing 747-8 and the Airbus A380.
So, we have proven that you build the vehicle, the cargo will arrive. Thank you for your participation.
Ares I is not overdesigned, it was underplanned. A case example of feature creep caused by top-down design; management determines the launcher then tells the engineers what they have to do. I've seen that sink many a project, both public and private. The SD-HLV approach, conversely, is the opposite, give a target "build using these parts a solution to loft this weight to orbit x" and let the engineers go.You seem to be struggling even worse now. I cannot get any simpler than the cart and horse example, anyone else have one?You are spouting nonsense here.
*edit* egads, I feel like Jim right now!
Don't really care about what that means Downix.
Q: Why did Ares 1 end up the way it did?
Oh well. Give it some thought Downix. Hint: Remember the Spruce Goose?
This is not the thread to discuss Ares I and its evolution, we have a whole category for that. And that is off-topic to boot.
As for the Hercules flying boat, commonly called the Spruce Goose, payloads were, in fact, ordered for it once it was procured (how many other planes dictated the width of a medium battle tank?). If it had flown, it would have had plenty of cargo. So, your argument collapses by your own examples. Especially since three planes arrived to fill the same cargo transporation needs, the An-225, the Boeing 747-8 and the Airbus A380.
So, we have proven that you build the vehicle, the cargo will arrive. Thank you for your participation.
Hate to break it to you Downix but this is why NASA is in chaos right now and why these discussions are important. Ares 1 was over designed for what it was and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars. You need to brush up on the history of the Spruce Goose to give you a better understanding. "If it had flown". LOL. Stay loose Downix. 8)
The reason the focus on payloads is so important is because that is the whole frakking point of any kind of launch vehicle. Around here, some people make it sound like payloads only exist as something to justify launch vehicles and that launch vehicles are practically an end to themselves.
A clean sheet HLV will be just as expensive as an SDLV. There are no payload for them. DOD and commercial have no need.
Ares I is not overdesigned, it was underplanned. A case example of feature creep caused by top-down design; management determines the launcher then tells the engineers what they have to do. I've seen that sink many a project, both public and private. The SD-HLV approach, conversely, is the opposite, give a target "build using these parts a solution to loft this weight to orbit x" and let the engineers go.You seem to be struggling even worse now. I cannot get any simpler than the cart and horse example, anyone else have one?You are spouting nonsense here.
*edit* egads, I feel like Jim right now!
Don't really care about what that means Downix.
Q: Why did Ares 1 end up the way it did?
Oh well. Give it some thought Downix. Hint: Remember the Spruce Goose?
This is not the thread to discuss Ares I and its evolution, we have a whole category for that. And that is off-topic to boot.
As for the Hercules flying boat, commonly called the Spruce Goose, payloads were, in fact, ordered for it once it was procured (how many other planes dictated the width of a medium battle tank?). If it had flown, it would have had plenty of cargo. So, your argument collapses by your own examples. Especially since three planes arrived to fill the same cargo transporation needs, the An-225, the Boeing 747-8 and the Airbus A380.
So, we have proven that you build the vehicle, the cargo will arrive. Thank you for your participation.
Hate to break it to you Downix but this is why NASA is in chaos right now and why these discussions are important. Ares 1 was over designed for what it was and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars. You need to brush up on the history of the Spruce Goose to give you a better understanding. "If it had flown". LOL. Stay loose Downix. 8)
And yes, "if it had flown." It flew about as well as Ares I did, a partial test flight, but not a functional transport.
A clean sheet HLV will be just as expensive as an SDLV. There are no payload for them. DOD and commercial have no need.
No doubt that HLLV would be expensive no matter the details. I agree that HLLV would not work as a "do-all" rocket. It should be designed for its deep space mission alone (humans to Mars ultimately).
I do believe, though, that a super-heavy should be designed to support the U.S. (e.g. EELV or similar) manufacturing base, both to strengthen U.S. launch capability and to cut costs. It should, for example, use engines that are also used by other rockets. It should use common avionics and software where possible. It should use common manufacturing, test, and launch facilities to the greatest extent possible. If should, if possible, use shared personnel. This does not necessarily mean that super-heavy need be constrained to existing systems. It could, instead, lead the way - developing new systems for shared use with other rockets.
Since I believe that super-heavy should support the existing and future rocket base, it stands to reason that I also believe that it is time, given the end of Shuttle and Ares, to leave the Shuttle-Derived systems behind once and for all.
- Ed Kyle
A clean sheet HLV will be just as expensive as an SDLV. There are no payload for them. DOD and commercial have no need.
No doubt that HLLV would be expensive no matter the details. I agree that HLLV would not work as a "do-all" rocket. It should be designed for its deep space mission alone (humans to Mars ultimately).
I do believe, though, that a super-heavy should be designed to support the U.S. (e.g. EELV or similar) manufacturing base, both to strengthen U.S. launch capability and to cut costs. It should, for example, use engines that are also used by other rockets. It should use common avionics and software where possible. It should use common manufacturing, test, and launch facilities to the greatest extent possible. If should, if possible, use shared personnel. This does not necessarily mean that super-heavy need be constrained to existing systems. It could, instead, lead the way - developing new systems for shared use with other rockets.
Since I believe that super-heavy should support the existing and future rocket base, it stands to reason that I also believe that it is time, given the end of Shuttle and Ares, to leave the Shuttle-Derived systems behind once and for all.
- Ed Kyle
It sounds like a NOVA concept. That would be a pretty expensive lift.
Can we all just agree that:
1) There is no point in developing a Heavy Lift Vehicle unless you have some idea what you want to launch on it.
2) There is no point developing Heavy Payloads unless there is going to be an HLV to launch them.
The two have to go hand in hand, however there is going to be a period of at least a year or two from when the first test HLV arrives at the pad until the test phase is completed and the HLV is declared operational. That means the payload development can easily lag a year or two behind HLV development.
With intermediate missions like ISS resupply, the lag can be even greater (except for Orion and a cargo carrier).
My suggestion would be 3-4 years to develop an HLV, then 3-4 years to develop initial BEO payloads while testing and gaining operational experience with the HLV.
And so on forward.
A clean sheet HLV will be just as expensive as an SDLV. There are no payload for them. DOD and commercial have no need.
No doubt that HLLV would be expensive no matter the details. I agree that HLLV would not work as a "do-all" rocket. It should be designed for its deep space mission alone (humans to Mars ultimately).
I do believe, though, that a super-heavy should be designed to support the U.S. (e.g. EELV or similar) manufacturing base, both to strengthen U.S. launch capability and to cut costs. It should, for example, use engines that are also used by other rockets. It should use common avionics and software where possible. It should use common manufacturing, test, and launch facilities to the greatest extent possible. If should, if possible, use shared personnel. This does not necessarily mean that super-heavy need be constrained to existing systems. It could, instead, lead the way - developing new systems for shared use with other rockets.
Since I believe that super-heavy should support the existing and future rocket base, it stands to reason that I also believe that it is time, given the end of Shuttle and Ares, to leave the Shuttle-Derived systems behind once and for all.
- Ed Kyle
It sounds like a NOVA concept. That would be a pretty expensive lift.
The question to ask is "expensive compared to what"? Deep space missions will be expensive, no doubt. But Shuttle and ISS were expensive too.
Some super heavy lifters would cost less to operate than others. It is important to make wise choices now to minimize future costs. The new rocket wouldn't be NOVA because propulsion and materials technology has matured significantly since the 1960s. Marshall's recent Concept 103 would do what Saturn V did using one less stage and three fewer engines, for example.
- Ed Kyle
You seem to be struggling even worse now. I cannot get any simpler than the cart and horse example, anyone else have one?
*edit* egads, I feel like Jim right now!
Don't really care about what that means Downix.
Q: Why did Ares 1 end up the way it did?
Oh well. Give it some thought Downix. Hint: Remember the Spruce Goose?
56 mt. to LEO.A clean sheet HLV will be just as expensive as an SDLV. There are no payload for them. DOD and commercial have no need.
No doubt that HLLV would be expensive no matter the details. I agree that HLLV would not work as a "do-all" rocket. It should be designed for its deep space mission alone (humans to Mars ultimately).
I do believe, though, that a super-heavy should be designed to support the U.S. (e.g. EELV or similar) manufacturing base, both to strengthen U.S. launch capability and to cut costs. It should, for example, use engines that are also used by other rockets. It should use common avionics and software where possible. It should use common manufacturing, test, and launch facilities to the greatest extent possible. If should, if possible, use shared personnel. This does not necessarily mean that super-heavy need be constrained to existing systems. It could, instead, lead the way - developing new systems for shared use with other rockets.
Since I believe that super-heavy should support the existing and future rocket base, it stands to reason that I also believe that it is time, given the end of Shuttle and Ares, to leave the Shuttle-Derived systems behind once and for all.
- Ed Kyle
It sounds like a NOVA concept. That would be a pretty expensive lift.
The question to ask is "expensive compared to what"? Deep space missions will be expensive, no doubt. But Shuttle and ISS were expensive too.
Some super heavy lifters would cost less to operate than others. It is important to make wise choices now to minimize future costs. The new rocket wouldn't be NOVA because propulsion and materials technology has matured significantly since the 1960s. Marshall's recent Concept 103 would do what Saturn V did using one less stage and three fewer engines, for example.
- Ed Kyle
I meant that it should not be too heavy. I agree completely that any future designs need to be simplified and standardized. Any previous designs of course would be modernized.
Nice practical statement kkattula. Let me ask you, what would you want to put on a HLV (your call) in 7-8 years.
Nice practical statement kkattula. Let me ask you, what would you want to put on a HLV (your call) in 7-8 years.
Phase 1: Propellant depots, BEO propulsion, and long duration crew Trans-Hab. That's enough to do L1/L2, NEO's, and Phobos/Deimos.
Phase 2: Lunar/Mars Landers
Phase 3: Lunar/Mars Permanent Base components.
Plus anything DOD or commercial companies want to fly.
Let me ask you, what would you want to put on a HLV (your call) in 7-8 years.
Any thoughts on Gravity and Radiation.
No, those are:
How many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?
24
4 Titan IV
8 Atlas II
1 Titan II
11 Delta II
4 Titan IV
8 Atlas II
1 Titan II
11 Delta II
Nobody in 1997 was planning on launching payloads on a Delta IV, especially not the Delta IV Heavy... because there wasn't one. You don't plan for a mission to use a particular solution until you have that solution available.
Launch vehicles are not designed or built unless there are payloads for them. Every launch vehicle upgrade has been driven by payload requirements. There is no "built is and they will come" wrt to HLV and payloads.So then, please explain where the 45mT launcher is for my former bosses project. It's been 12 years, have not had a launcher show up yet. They will not commit to the payload without the launcher, as it is an expensive element.
1. So then, please explain where the 45mT launcher is for my former bosses project. It's been 12 years, have not had a launcher show up yet. They will not commit to the payload without the launcher, as it is an expensive element.
2. You are right that the launch vehicles are built per-order, not just sitting around on a shelf somewhere. But they are designed. Look at the Atlas V Heavy, never launched, as nobody has placed an order for it. But it is there, ready to go whenever someone demands that level of performance.
We can go around in circles here forever.
1. So then, please explain where the 45mT launcher is for my former bosses project. It's been 12 years, have not had a launcher show up yet. They will not commit to the payload without the launcher, as it is an expensive element.
2. You are right that the launch vehicles are built per-order, not just sitting around on a shelf somewhere. But they are designed. Look at the Atlas V Heavy, never launched, as nobody has placed an order for it. But it is there, ready to go whenever someone demands that level of performance.
1. It is not a "real" program then. If it had a need, it would have the money to build a launch vehicle. All "real" payloads have the money to develop a launch vehicle. See RS-68A, Delta II Heavy, Atlas IIA, IIAS, EELV with solids, etc
2. Atlas V Heavy is the same thing as a Delta IV Heavy, it was designed for the same payloads. A duplication of effort, hence it wasn't developed past CDR.
Or that company should invest the R&D money to one of the existing launch companies, who then turn around and sell off access to what you just paid to develop? That is not good business there Jim, so I am trying to understand.
That is incredibly bad business sense and everyone knows it. Which is why they (businessess) demand that the Government procures the R&D, so that it can be utilized afterwards.Or that company should invest the R&D money to one of the existing launch companies, who then turn around and sell off access to what you just paid to develop? That is not good business there Jim, so I am trying to understand.
That is how it works, the first user gets stuck with the costs. This was true with Delta in the 1970's (RCA Satcom, I think with the upgrade from the 29xx to 39xx) and with Atlas G (Intelsat V), Delta II (GPS), Atlas II (DSCS), etc
It was good business for RCA Satcom, which had first dibs on the more powerful Delta. No one else used Delta 3000 for nearly two years. The early Satcoms carried more transponders than other satellites, and thus were used to launch things like Ted Turner's superstation, the Weather Channel, and even CNN.That is how it works, the first user gets stuck with the costs. This was true with Delta in the 1970's (RCA Satcom, I think with the upgrade from the 29xx to 39xx) and with Atlas G (Intelsat V), Delta II (GPS), Atlas II (DSCS), etcThat is incredibly bad business sense and everyone knows it. Which is why they (businessess) demand that the Government procures the R&D, so that it can be utilized afterwards.
You just made the case for why the US has to develop HLV.
That is incredibly bad business sense and everyone knows it. Which is why they (businessess) demand that the Government procures the R&D, so that it can be utilized afterwards.
You just made the case for why the US has to develop HLV.
56 mt. to LEO.
I've noticed that we tend to talk about the LEO number, but since the real mission is escape, perhaps we should discuss that capability.
How would one calculate TLI, out of curiosity? I have gotten decent in figuring out LEO with the Schillings system, and there is a manner for Earth-Escape, not nothing for TLI.I've noticed that we tend to talk about the LEO number, but since the real mission is escape, perhaps we should discuss that capability.
Okay, let's talk about that.
First, a history lesson: The figure for the ESAS system that eventually became Ares-I and -V were in many ways defined by Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct archetecture (something of which Mike Griffin was a fan). That required an approximate performance of 50t through TMI. When CxP was turned into a lunar archetecture, this was used to enable the justification of a simply enormous cryogenic-fuelled LSAM that we know as Altair. Ares-V's TLI performance became reverse-justified by proposing an equally large cargo lander that required its performance to launch to the Moon without any post-launch rendezvous and calling the arbritary payload-to-lunar surface performance of this giant a 'minimum requirement'. Various performance issues on Ares-I then forced the through-TLI performance of Ares-V to snowball, but that is another story altogether.
The point is this: Although I don't like many aspects of CxP, the concept of a single-shot cargo delivery to the Moon is a good one. In my view, a modern lunar archetecture ought to have the requirement to launch a one-way cargo lander through TLI. This does not have to be for lunar base support. It could be cargo, pre-positioning for an extended-duration surface mission staging out of the lander. Purely IMHO, whilst Altair was on the large side, a lander in the 30t-40t range is certainly a requirement if you are planning to put four astronauts on the lunar surface. Remove the ascent stage and you have the capability to deliver perhaps 10t of cargo to the surface.
A secondary mission for this capability is that it would be able to launch a rescue lander or an uncrewed Orion to the Moon in case of failure of either the mission's lander or CRV. IMHO at least, whilst propellent transfer and EOR assembly have reduced the need for a HLV and brought the ETO payload requirements down, the single-shot rescue launch is a good justification for requiring a capability of 25t through TLI for a replacement CRV or 30t to 40t through TLI for a replacement LSAM.
The fact that this would enable the launch to LEO of an entire lunar/low-dV NEO mission vehicle which could then re-fuel from a depot or tanker is a tertiary but welcome feature.
A good performance bracket, IMHO would be a maximum of 45t through TLI, unrefuelled. This gives you a bit of margin for MCCs. This would require a D-SDLV of the sort proposed by JSC and MSFC or the Atlas-V Phase 2 quin-core with the larger ACES upper stage.
[edit]
Added conclusion paragraph
Then the bait-and-switch from ESAS to CxP resulted in the reuse of only the orange foam, and the SRB casings, plus the many billions in cost overruns and delays since.
STS-136:(My highlight).
STS-136, which would likely be awarded to Endeavour, utilizing a spare tank located at MAF called ET-94, per L2 notes – and recently reported by this site. A loss of upmass would be charged against the mission, given ET-94 is only a Light Weight Tank (LWT), as opposed to the Super Light Weight Tanks (SLWT) that have been used in recent years.
An alternative option of using one of the three part built tanks at MAF holds some potential to support a 2012 mission, providing a long-lead item of certifying the latest version the Thermal Protection System (TPS) foam (BX-265) is removed or advanced – currently noted as a constraint to new tank production/completion prior to 2012.
You seem to be struggling even worse now. I cannot get any simpler than the cart and horse example, anyone else have one?
*edit* egads, I feel like Jim right now!
Don't really care about what that means Downix.
Q: Why did Ares 1 end up the way it did?
Oh well. Give it some thought Downix. Hint: Remember the Spruce Goose?
Why are you advocating this ridiculous Saturn C3 rebuild concept?
Ares one was a poorly designed logical fallacy from day one. SSME could have been used, but not with restart capability. Moot point: Atlas V should have been the lifter if they wanted to use two LVS (CLV/CaLV) instead of 1 CLV+CaLV like Direct.
Ares 1 was a crude attempt to duplicate existing EELV capabilites (presumably because Mike and Co. wanted it that way.)
Finishing RS-84 and RL-60 would be even more cost effective than this.You seem to be struggling even worse now. I cannot get any simpler than the cart and horse example, anyone else have one?
*edit* egads, I feel like Jim right now!
Don't really care about what that means Downix.
Q: Why did Ares 1 end up the way it did?
Oh well. Give it some thought Downix. Hint: Remember the Spruce Goose?
Why are you advocating this ridiculous Saturn C3 rebuild concept?
Ares one was a poorly designed logical fallacy from day one. SSME could have been used, but not with restart capability. Moot point: Atlas V should have been the lifter if they wanted to use two LVS (CLV/CaLV) instead of 1 CLV+CaLV like Direct.
Ares 1 was a crude attempt to duplicate existing EELV capabilites (presumably because Mike and Co. wanted it that way.)
Modernizing a F-1A and J-2 would be more cost effective in the long run than modifying a RS-68 for example. Those two engines would be standardized hardware for crew and HLV. Is was just using the Saturn C-3 as an example.
How would one calculate TLI, out of curiosity? I have gotten decent in figuring out LEO with the Schillings system, and there is a manner for Earth-Escape, not nothing for TLI.
Payload (inc ASE) | 79,053kg | |
EDS burnout | 12,962kg | |
usable post-ascent prop | 99,896kg | NB this includes the engine startup prop |
Modernizing a F-1A and J-2 would be more cost effective in the long run than modifying a RS-68 for example. Those two engines would be standardized hardware for crew and HLV. Is was just using the Saturn C-3 as an example lift.
Finishing RS-84 and RL-60 would be even more cost effective than this.You seem to be struggling even worse now. I cannot get any simpler than the cart and horse example, anyone else have one?
*edit* egads, I feel like Jim right now!
Don't really care about what that means Downix.
Q: Why did Ares 1 end up the way it did?
Oh well. Give it some thought Downix. Hint: Remember the Spruce Goose?
Why are you advocating this ridiculous Saturn C3 rebuild concept?
Ares one was a poorly designed logical fallacy from day one. SSME could have been used, but not with restart capability. Moot point: Atlas V should have been the lifter if they wanted to use two LVS (CLV/CaLV) instead of 1 CLV+CaLV like Direct.
Ares 1 was a crude attempt to duplicate existing EELV capabilites (presumably because Mike and Co. wanted it that way.)
Modernizing a F-1A and J-2 would be more cost effective in the long run than modifying a RS-68 for example. Those two engines would be standardized hardware for crew and HLV. Is was just using the Saturn C-3 as an example.
No argument there, but I was keeping with a kerolox first stage and hydrolox upper stage for the scope of the argument.Finishing RS-84 and RL-60 would be even more cost effective than this.You seem to be struggling even worse now. I cannot get any simpler than the cart and horse example, anyone else have one?
*edit* egads, I feel like Jim right now!
Don't really care about what that means Downix.
Q: Why did Ares 1 end up the way it did?
Oh well. Give it some thought Downix. Hint: Remember the Spruce Goose?
Why are you advocating this ridiculous Saturn C3 rebuild concept?
Ares one was a poorly designed logical fallacy from day one. SSME could have been used, but not with restart capability. Moot point: Atlas V should have been the lifter if they wanted to use two LVS (CLV/CaLV) instead of 1 CLV+CaLV like Direct.
Ares 1 was a crude attempt to duplicate existing EELV capabilites (presumably because Mike and Co. wanted it that way.)
Modernizing a F-1A and J-2 would be more cost effective in the long run than modifying a RS-68 for example. Those two engines would be standardized hardware for crew and HLV. Is was just using the Saturn C-3 as an example.
RS25e is more cost effective than this. Best option.
1. So then, please explain where the 45mT launcher is for my former bosses project. It's been 12 years, have not had a launcher show up yet. They will not commit to the payload without the launcher, as it is an expensive element.
2. You are right that the launch vehicles are built per-order, not just sitting around on a shelf somewhere. But they are designed. Look at the Atlas V Heavy, never launched, as nobody has placed an order for it. But it is there, ready to go whenever someone demands that level of performance.
1. It is not a "real" program then. If it had a need, it would have the money to build a launch vehicle. All "real" payloads have the money to develop a launch vehicle. See RS-68A, Delta II Heavy, Atlas IIA, IIAS, EELV with solids, etc
You seem to be struggling even worse now. I cannot get any simpler than the cart and horse example, anyone else have one?
*edit* egads, I feel like Jim right now!
Don't really care about what that means Downix.
Q: Why did Ares 1 end up the way it did?
Oh well. Give it some thought Downix. Hint: Remember the Spruce Goose?
Why are you advocating this ridiculous Saturn C3 rebuild concept?
Ares one was a poorly designed logical fallacy from day one. SSME could have been used, but not with restart capability. Moot point: Atlas V should have been the lifter if they wanted to use two LVS (CLV/CaLV) instead of 1 CLV+CaLV like Direct.
Ares 1 was a crude attempt to duplicate existing EELV capabilites (presumably because Mike and Co. wanted it that way.)
Modernizing a F-1A and J-2 would be more cost effective in the long run than modifying a RS-68 for example. Those two engines would be standardized hardware for crew and HLV. Is was just using the Saturn C-3 as an example lift.
Check ULA's proposal. No it could not all be accomdated. Things like large nuclear stages (that 200 mw power source ;) ) could not be lifted this way.
1. So then, please explain where the 45mT launcher is for my former bosses project. It's been 12 years, have not had a launcher show up yet. They will not commit to the payload without the launcher, as it is an expensive element.
2. You are right that the launch vehicles are built per-order, not just sitting around on a shelf somewhere. But they are designed. Look at the Atlas V Heavy, never launched, as nobody has placed an order for it. But it is there, ready to go whenever someone demands that level of performance.
1. It is not a "real" program then. If it had a need, it would have the money to build a launch vehicle. All "real" payloads have the money to develop a launch vehicle. See RS-68A, Delta II Heavy, Atlas IIA, IIAS, EELV with solids, etc
I presume this could be just about accommodated on EELV with the ACES upper stage? What sort of cost would this take to develop?
thanks, Martin
But he should also read the recent HLLV Study presentation, which shows the clean-sheet kerosene rocket costing less to operate than any Shuttle-Derived option.Modernizing a F-1A and J-2 would be more cost effective in the long run than modifying a RS-68 for example. Those two engines would be standardized hardware for crew and HLV. Is was just using the Saturn C-3 as an example lift.
You clearly haven't been paying attention. Read the current DIRECT thread cover to cover, then come back.
Ah ah ahh! Not so fast. The clean sheet Kerosene cost less than any SD utilizing SRB's.But he should also read the recent HLLV Study presentation, which shows the clean-sheet kerosene rocket costing less to operate than any Shuttle-Derived option.Modernizing a F-1A and J-2 would be more cost effective in the long run than modifying a RS-68 for example. Those two engines would be standardized hardware for crew and HLV. Is was just using the Saturn C-3 as an example lift.
You clearly haven't been paying attention. Read the current DIRECT thread cover to cover, then come back.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=231227/HLLV_Data_Team_Final_52010_for_BAA_posting%5B1%5D.pdf
- Ed Kyle
Finishing RS-84 and RL-60 would be even more cost effective than this.You seem to be struggling even worse now. I cannot get any simpler than the cart and horse example, anyone else have one?
*edit* egads, I feel like Jim right now!
Don't really care about what that means Downix.
Q: Why did Ares 1 end up the way it did?
Oh well. Give it some thought Downix. Hint: Remember the Spruce Goose?
Why are you advocating this ridiculous Saturn C3 rebuild concept?
Ares one was a poorly designed logical fallacy from day one. SSME could have been used, but not with restart capability. Moot point: Atlas V should have been the lifter if they wanted to use two LVS (CLV/CaLV) instead of 1 CLV+CaLV like Direct.
Ares 1 was a crude attempt to duplicate existing EELV capabilites (presumably because Mike and Co. wanted it that way.)
Modernizing a F-1A and J-2 would be more cost effective in the long run than modifying a RS-68 for example. Those two engines would be standardized hardware for crew and HLV. Is was just using the Saturn C-3 as an example.
RS25e is more cost effective than this. Best option.
Only if you are using the ET. If you used a Delta IV class vehicle, would only need two.Finishing RS-84 and RL-60 would be even more cost effective than this.You seem to be struggling even worse now. I cannot get any simpler than the cart and horse example, anyone else have one?
*edit* egads, I feel like Jim right now!
Don't really care about what that means Downix.
Q: Why did Ares 1 end up the way it did?
Oh well. Give it some thought Downix. Hint: Remember the Spruce Goose?
Why are you advocating this ridiculous Saturn C3 rebuild concept?
Ares one was a poorly designed logical fallacy from day one. SSME could have been used, but not with restart capability. Moot point: Atlas V should have been the lifter if they wanted to use two LVS (CLV/CaLV) instead of 1 CLV+CaLV like Direct.
Ares 1 was a crude attempt to duplicate existing EELV capabilites (presumably because Mike and Co. wanted it that way.)
Modernizing a F-1A and J-2 would be more cost effective in the long run than modifying a RS-68 for example. Those two engines would be standardized hardware for crew and HLV. Is was just using the Saturn C-3 as an example.
RS25e is more cost effective than this. Best option.
Ok.
So, you will need a minimum of 6 x RS25e to get it off the ground.
Ah ah ahh! Not so fast. The clean sheet Kerosene cost less than any SD utilizing SRB's.But he should also read the recent HLLV Study presentation, which shows the clean-sheet kerosene rocket costing less to operate than any Shuttle-Derived option.Modernizing a F-1A and J-2 would be more cost effective in the long run than modifying a RS-68 for example. Those two engines would be standardized hardware for crew and HLV. Is was just using the Saturn C-3 as an example lift.
You clearly haven't been paying attention. Read the current DIRECT thread cover to cover, then come back.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=231227/HLLV_Data_Team_Final_52010_for_BAA_posting%5B1%5D.pdf
- Ed Kyle
AJAX's approach has not been evaluated I do not believe.
They are thinking 10 or more years into the future
Also, any clue as to why DOD wants a new kerolox engine? EELV costs shouldn't be rising THAT much.............
1. ...First, how will this HLV be selected?
2. [Second], what payloads and missions will this HLV have?
3. ... Last I checked, we don't have an obvious choice. Sure we have two good SD LV choices (Direct and "not" Shuttle C)... What's to keep the decision process from coming up with another turkey?
...As I said, I know of at least 1 45mT payload sitting on paper...
Orion + DIVUS, Hubble replacements (plural) and big spy-sats, new/replacement ISS modules, and eventually BEO flexible-path...QuoteThis is a good batch of possibilities, but where is the compelling argument for one of them? I do agree that there is a certain amount of "build it and they will come", but this seems to be the biggest selling feature.
Thinking about those fictional CEO's who sank $14B into a payload without a vehicle. I think they would be more likely to sink $7b into each category. I think I'm saying that Spruce Goose failed because the plane itself failed, not because there was a lack of tanks to put on it. Ares seems to have failed because the rocket itself is failing, not because we lack the ideas of which missions to propose. That Ares suffers from underplanning is more a detail of its failure.
The new proposals do nothing to give confidence that "feature creep" will not continue.
I agree in principle, and sorta kinda with Ed Kyle and Kkattula. While practically speaking, the launcher development would preceed the payload development in some scenarios, without a multi-term committment from Congress, it doesn't seem likely. Further, if Mars is indeed the "ultimate" next destination, who can say exactly how the ocnstruction timelines would go?Quote...there is no need for nine unabridged, nested quotes.One of my pet peeves as well.
Assuming "AJAX" means Atlas CCBs strapped to an SDV core powered by SSME or RS-68 engines, at least one option like that was considered during ESAS. I'm not sure about the more recent HLLV studies. One issue with this approach is that to be truly super lift, more than two strap-on rockets are required, which pushes the LOM numbers down.Quite true, but it would scale to payload needs far simpler than most other HLLV studies I have observed.
- Ed Kyle
Ares I is not overdesigned, it was underplanned. A case example of feature creep caused by top-down design; management determines the launcher then tells the engineers what they have to do. I've seen that sink many a project, both public and private. The SD-HLV approach, conversely, is the opposite, give a target "build using these parts a solution to loft this weight to orbit x" and let the engineers go.
They did? I do not remember the J-2X nor 5-segment SRB being an existing component.Ares I is not overdesigned, it was underplanned. A case example of feature creep caused by top-down design; management determines the launcher then tells the engineers what they have to do. I've seen that sink many a project, both public and private. The SD-HLV approach, conversely, is the opposite, give a target "build using these parts a solution to loft this weight to orbit x" and let the engineers go.
AFAICT, both Ares I & SD-HLV (and the various EELV "phases") start from the same premise - "if we re-organise / re-use existing components in this manner, we can get this much payload to LEO / TLI".
DIRECT's attraction is that it has much higher margins than did Ares I / CxP (which I guess you could therefore say was poorly planned in comparison).
cheers, Martin
They did? I do not remember the J-2X nor 5-segment SRB being an existing component.Ares I is not overdesigned, it was underplanned. A case example of feature creep caused by top-down design; management determines the launcher then tells the engineers what they have to do. I've seen that sink many a project, both public and private. The SD-HLV approach, conversely, is the opposite, give a target "build using these parts a solution to loft this weight to orbit x" and let the engineers go.
AFAICT, both Ares I & SD-HLV (and the various EELV "phases") start from the same premise - "if we re-organise / re-use existing components in this manner, we can get this much payload to LEO / TLI".
DIRECT's attraction is that it has much higher margins than did Ares I / CxP (which I guess you could therefore say was poorly planned in comparison).
cheers, Martin
I do understand where you are coming from, and I see you understand where I am. So we're on the same page.
NO NO NO NO NO !!!!Finishing RS-84 and RL-60 would be even more cost effective than this.You seem to be struggling even worse now. I cannot get any simpler than the cart and horse example, anyone else have one?
*edit* egads, I feel like Jim right now!
Don't really care about what that means Downix.
Q: Why did Ares 1 end up the way it did?
Oh well. Give it some thought Downix. Hint: Remember the Spruce Goose?
Why are you advocating this ridiculous Saturn C3 rebuild concept?
Ares one was a poorly designed logical fallacy from day one. SSME could have been used, but not with restart capability. Moot point: Atlas V should have been the lifter if they wanted to use two LVS (CLV/CaLV) instead of 1 CLV+CaLV like Direct.
Ares 1 was a crude attempt to duplicate existing EELV capabilites (presumably because Mike and Co. wanted it that way.)
Modernizing a F-1A and J-2 would be more cost effective in the long run than modifying a RS-68 for example. Those two engines would be standardized hardware for crew and HLV. Is was just using the Saturn C-3 as an example.
RS25e is more cost effective than this. Best option.
Ok.
So, you will need a minimum of 6 x RS25e to get it off the ground.
Also Atlas V is just short of manrated, due to the OSP project.... All that is needed (to my knowledge) is the addition of an Emergency Detection System Package, rather simple upgrade.
NASA’s Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) last year (Ed. 2006?) cited the inability of the Atlas V in its heavier configurations to close ‘black zones’ while meeting CEV requirements as one concern in their elimination of EELV’s for human flight in favor of the Ares I. However, the CEV capsule mass requirements for the ESAS study were more than double the capsule mass that ULA and Bigelow are studying.
QuoteAlso Atlas V is just short of manrated, due to the OSP project.... All that is needed (to my knowledge) is the addition of an Emergency Detection System Package, rather simple upgrade.
It's been mentioned before in this thread, and I (mostly) agree, that given their limited budget NASA should focus on developing *new* capabilities ... not duplicating extant ones.QuoteNASA’s Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) last year (Ed. 2006?) cited the inability of the Atlas V in its heavier configurations to close ‘black zones’ while meeting CEV requirements as one concern in their elimination of EELV’s for human flight in favor of the Ares I. However, the CEV capsule mass requirements for the ESAS study were more than double the capsule mass that ULA and Bigelow are studying.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2007/01/human-rated-atlas-v-for-bigelow-space-station-details-emerge/
It blows my mind that the Atlas V was ruled out of a HSF role as a result of having the purpose-built-Apollo-on-steroids architecture requirements of CxP levied upon it. Carrying crew to LEO and the ISS needs to be a rote procedure (as much as anything can ever be in this business) and it should not be confused with sending crew BEO.
So in sticking with the topic of the thread ...
Do we really even need an HLV? $40 billion (?) in Ares V development costs (or $7 billion worth of Sidemount SDLV development) could sure buy quite a few EELV flights. Personally, I'd much rather have a BEO craft and orbital depots. Assemble and launch missions from the ISS.
So while I know Congress is interested in "saving jobs", the question must be asked .... "Are these the RIGHT jobs to be saving?". Or do we need to be focusing on *creating* new jobs that will meet all our national space policy goals? Whatever those may be.
The point here is Congress has no clue why they are building a launch vehicle. They just want to keep people working.
NO NO NO NO NO !!!!
Ok.
So, you will need a minimum of 6 x RS25e to get it off the ground.
SDHLV Two SRBs+4 Rs 25 e OR 4 Atlas CCBS+ 4 Rs 25 e
No boosterless rockets please.
Um... you are aware that liquid boosters are lighter than solid boosters to get to the pad, and cost less to handle, right?NO NO NO NO NO !!!!
Ok.
So, you will need a minimum of 6 x RS25e to get it off the ground.
SDHLV Two SRBs+4 Rs 25 e OR 4 Atlas CCBS+ 4 Rs 25 e
No boosterless rockets please.
OH, YES
If I had spent more time in Louisville I'd feel the same way but sorry no strapon's, solids please. Let' s keep the weight and costs down to the pad. Oh, you will need a blessing from the roach coach driver to get 6 x RS25e off the pad. ;D
How would one calculate TLI, out of curiosity? I have gotten decent in figuring out LEO with the Schillings system, and there is a manner for Earth-Escape, not nothing for TLI.
2 shuttle SRB: 1,179,340 kg
4 Atlas CCBs: 89,844 kg
The beauty of liquid boosters, you can fill them on the pad. No such luck with solid.
Um... you are aware that liquid boosters are lighter than solid boosters to get to the pad, and cost less to handle, right?NO NO NO NO NO !!!!
Ok.
So, you will need a minimum of 6 x RS25e to get it off the ground.
SDHLV Two SRBs+4 Rs 25 e OR 4 Atlas CCBS+ 4 Rs 25 e
No boosterless rockets please.
OH, YES
If I had spent more time in Louisville I'd feel the same way but sorry no strapon's, solids please. Let' s keep the weight and costs down to the pad. Oh, you will need a blessing from the roach coach driver to get 6 x RS25e off the pad. ;D
2 shuttle SRB: 1,179,340 kg
4 Atlas CCBs: 89,844 kg
The beauty of liquid boosters, you can fill them on the pad. No such luck with solid.
Boosters, IMO, make things:2 shuttle SRB: 1,179,340 kg
4 Atlas CCBs: 89,844 kg
The beauty of liquid boosters, you can fill them on the pad. No such luck with solid.
No strap-on boosters of any kind would be even more beautiful!
An earth shaking kerosene first stage topped by a refined hydrogen upper stage properly sized to serve double duty (ascent and restart for escape), with the whole bit optimized for maximum escape velocity payload, would be a statuesque wonder.
- Ed Kyle
Boosters, IMO, make things:2 shuttle SRB: 1,179,340 kg
4 Atlas CCBs: 89,844 kg
The beauty of liquid boosters, you can fill them on the pad. No such luck with solid.
No strap-on boosters of any kind would be even more beautiful!
An earth shaking kerosene first stage topped by a refined hydrogen upper stage properly sized to serve double duty (ascent and restart for escape), with the whole bit optimized for maximum escape velocity payload, would be a statuesque wonder.
- Ed Kyle
1. Cheaper
2. Easier
3. Increase LEO performance
4. Allow designs to reach IOC quicker.
5. Result in cheaper overall costs.
Saturn 5 couldn't throw all that much in the way of habitats, for example, to the moon (and the LEM had to be very lightweight). Imagine if it had had boosters ;)
Shuttle needs boosters because it uses ground lit LH2/LOX engines which have low T/W.
If a launch vehicle would use RP-1/LOX or LH2/LOX with RP-1 TAN for the first stage, it would be sized to not need boosters for typical payloads.
Boosters would be added for overweight payloads, to avoid having to build a second, bigger LV.
Shuttle needs boosters because it uses ground lit LH2/LOX engines which have low T/W.
If a launch vehicle would use RP-1/LOX or LH2/LOX with RP-1 TAN for the first stage, it would be sized to not need boosters for typical payloads.
Boosters would be added for overweight payloads, to avoid having to build a second, bigger LV.
Boosters, IMO, make things:
1. Cheaper
2. Easier
3. Increase LEO preformance
4. Allow designs to reach IOC quicker.
5. Result in cheaper overall costs.
Thank you for your insight yesterday. I believe we need to increase funding for AG and radiation studies though. Considering the instability of our current government it may take a little more time to develop a viable manned space program.
HLLV won't need EELV-type launch system flexibility to handle a wide variety of payloads launched into different orbits from different launch sites. Instead, HLLV will do one job - throw mass, as much as possible, from Florida into deep space. The job will be easier if the rocket is designed to be as simple as possible.
No, you said "no strapons, solids please". Grammer dictates that the comma indicates a change, so, it means "no strapons" then "solids please".Um... you are aware that liquid boosters are lighter than solid boosters to get to the pad, and cost less to handle, right?NO NO NO NO NO !!!!
Ok.
So, you will need a minimum of 6 x RS25e to get it off the ground.
SDHLV Two SRBs+4 Rs 25 e OR 4 Atlas CCBS+ 4 Rs 25 e
No boosterless rockets please.
OH, YES
If I had spent more time in Louisville I'd feel the same way but sorry no strapon's, solids please. Let' s keep the weight and costs down to the pad. Oh, you will need a blessing from the roach coach driver to get 6 x RS25e off the pad. ;D
2 shuttle SRB: 1,179,340 kg
4 Atlas CCBs: 89,844 kg
The beauty of liquid boosters, you can fill them on the pad. No such luck with solid.
I said no to solids and strapons. Read above. ::)
HLLV won't need EELV-type launch system flexibility to handle a wide variety of payloads launched into different orbits from different launch sites. Instead, HLLV will do one job - throw mass, as much as possible, from Florida into deep space.
Purely IMHO, the HLLV will be perceived as "NASA's Rocket" as opposed to the commercial providers. There will be considerable political pressure for it to be capable of handling any NASA HSF mission's launch requirements in case the 'unproven' (the politicians' likely phrase) commercial providers are unable to meet their requirements.
These missions can be summarised as:
1) Crew launch to LEO (ISS support and large mission vehicle crewing);
2) LEO logistics and assembly (ISS support and large MV assembly);
3) Heavy lift (100t IMELO or more), including launching wet EDS & mission vehicles for lunar& short NEO missions.
That commercial LVs can do (1) and possibly elements of (2) as well will be irrelevant. The politicians will want NASA to have the capability to do this on its own for a variety of reasons, very few of which will be engineering- or operationally-based. ...
Isn't there a legal issue with using a NASA rocket and spacecraft for ISS resupply, if there are already commercial providers who provide the same services?For large replacement units and new ISS modules where commercial providers cannot provide the needed services, a heavy-lift vehicle with an SSPDM-type cradle would be ideal and it would not matter if it was NASA operated or not.
For large replacement units and new ISS modules where commercial providers cannot provide the needed services, a heavy-lift vehicle with an SSPDM-type cradle would be ideal and it would not matter if it was NASA operated or not.
MPLM for example.
For large replacement units and new ISS modules where commercial providers cannot provide the needed services, a heavy-lift vehicle with an SSPDM-type cradle would be ideal and it would not matter if it was NASA operated or not.
SSPDM-type cradle is not needed for new modules. They can be designed for ELV launch from inception. SSPDM-type cradle is for existing modules.
MPLM for example.
Let me see......
MPLM for example.
Still not required. See the concepts for Node 4 delivery.
From Apollo annecdotal evidence, AG probably doesn't require 1 G. Somewhere around 0.1 to 0.2 may be enough to alleviate many of the problems with freefall. Exercising with weights would likely deal with most of the rest. So depending on ther rotation rates people can tolerate, relatively small radii may be adequate. This is an area where I'd like to see some early LEO experimentation done. See my Big Dumb Station concept: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20529.msg546211#msg546211
Thank you for your insight yesterday. I believe we need to increase funding for AG and radiation studies though. Considering the instability of our current government it may take a little more time to develop a viable manned space program.
AIUI, radiation is fairly easy. Generally you want as little ship around the crew as possible to minimize secondary radiation scattered from the hull. Then you have a small storm shelter surrounded by as much water and/or LH2 as possible. You also need a good solar flare warning system so they can get to the shelter in plenty of time.
Deflecting "radiation" only works for charged particles not for neutral ones.
AIUI, radiation is fairly easy. Generally you want as little ship around the crew as possible to minimize secondary radiation scattered from the hull. Then you have a small storm shelter surrounded by as much water and/or LH2 as possible. You also need a good solar flare warning system so they can get to the shelter in plenty of time.
I would rather see more studies to repel radiation then absorbing it.
From Apollo annecdotal evidence, AG probably doesn't require 1 G. Somewhere around 0.1 to 0.2 may be enough to alleviate many of the problems with freefall. Exercising with weights would likely deal with most of the rest. So depending on ther rotation rates people can tolerate, relatively small radii may be adequate. This is an area where I'd like to see some early LEO experimentation done. See my Big Dumb Station concept: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20529.msg546211#msg546211
Yes, this is an excellent example of life sciences work that cannot be done on humans at ISS. Even with the canceled CAM we would have only been able to conduct animal-analog experiments. NASA is committed to keeping astronauts as fully conditioned as possible during long in-space exploration missions, but we're not going to know how to do that without some centrifuge experimentation. A "medium" HLV (e.g. 60 t to LEO) would provide just what's needed for this.
Really? We have a 12m fairing to fit it?From Apollo annecdotal evidence, AG probably doesn't require 1 G. Somewhere around 0.1 to 0.2 may be enough to alleviate many of the problems with freefall. Exercising with weights would likely deal with most of the rest. So depending on ther rotation rates people can tolerate, relatively small radii may be adequate. This is an area where I'd like to see some early LEO experimentation done. See my Big Dumb Station concept: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20529.msg546211#msg546211
Yes, this is an excellent example of life sciences work that cannot be done on humans at ISS. Even with the canceled CAM we would have only been able to conduct animal-analog experiments. NASA is committed to keeping astronauts as fully conditioned as possible during long in-space exploration missions, but we're not going to know how to do that without some centrifuge experimentation. A "medium" HLV (e.g. 60 t to LEO) would provide just what's needed for this.
If all you need is a 60MT centrifuge, then 3 flights of an EELV could do it for you. No medium HLV needed.
Really? We have a 12m fairing to fit it?From Apollo annecdotal evidence, AG probably doesn't require 1 G. Somewhere around 0.1 to 0.2 may be enough to alleviate many of the problems with freefall. Exercising with weights would likely deal with most of the rest. So depending on ther rotation rates people can tolerate, relatively small radii may be adequate. This is an area where I'd like to see some early LEO experimentation done. See my Big Dumb Station concept: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20529.msg546211#msg546211
Yes, this is an excellent example of life sciences work that cannot be done on humans at ISS. Even with the canceled CAM we would have only been able to conduct animal-analog experiments. NASA is committed to keeping astronauts as fully conditioned as possible during long in-space exploration missions, but we're not going to know how to do that without some centrifuge experimentation. A "medium" HLV (e.g. 60 t to LEO) would provide just what's needed for this.
If all you need is a 60MT centrifuge, then 3 flights of an EELV could do it for you. No medium HLV needed.
You're ignoring the question. On orbit assembly requires manpower, which will require another launch or three, for the crew. 6 launches, now with 3 potential loss of crew, rather than a single HLV.Really? We have a 12m fairing to fit it?From Apollo annecdotal evidence, AG probably doesn't require 1 G. Somewhere around 0.1 to 0.2 may be enough to alleviate many of the problems with freefall. Exercising with weights would likely deal with most of the rest. So depending on ther rotation rates people can tolerate, relatively small radii may be adequate. This is an area where I'd like to see some early LEO experimentation done. See my Big Dumb Station concept: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20529.msg546211#msg546211
Yes, this is an excellent example of life sciences work that cannot be done on humans at ISS. Even with the canceled CAM we would have only been able to conduct animal-analog experiments. NASA is committed to keeping astronauts as fully conditioned as possible during long in-space exploration missions, but we're not going to know how to do that without some centrifuge experimentation. A "medium" HLV (e.g. 60 t to LEO) would provide just what's needed for this.
If all you need is a 60MT centrifuge, then 3 flights of an EELV could do it for you. No medium HLV needed.
On orbit assembly has been invented.....
Deflecting "radiation" only works for charged particles not for neutral ones.
AIUI, radiation is fairly easy. Generally you want as little ship around the crew as possible to minimize secondary radiation scattered from the hull. Then you have a small storm shelter surrounded by as much water and/or LH2 as possible. You also need a good solar flare warning system so they can get to the shelter in plenty of time.
I would rather see more studies to repel radiation then absorbing it.
All you have is scattering/absorption for them.
And, for the highest energy particles a) you can't predict timing/direction of them b) you can't afford same mass budget no matter deflection/absorption.
You're ignoring the question. On orbit assembly requires manpower, which will require another launch or three, for the crew.
You're ignoring the question. On orbit assembly requires manpower, which will require another launch or three, for the crew. 6 launches, now with 3 potential loss of crew, rather than a single HLV.
You're ignoring the question. On orbit assembly requires manpower, which will require another launch or three, for the crew.
Does on-orbit assembly necessarily require manpower? After all, a Soyuz was able to dock with Mir while both were unoccupied, and that was back in 1986. It might be worthwhile to start another thread to discuss that question. (Also, there's already manpower available at the ISS)
You're ignoring the question. On orbit assembly requires manpower, which will require another launch or three, for the crew.
Does on-orbit assembly necessarily require manpower? After all, a Soyuz was able to dock with Mir while both were unoccupied, and that was back in 1986. It might be worthwhile to start another thread to discuss that question. (Also, there's already manpower available at the ISS)
With a craft of similar complexity to the ISS, I would have to say yes, it would require manpower, or more precisely, on orbit assembly.
However, this does not actually require launch of a human assembly crew. Advanced versions of the teleoperated Robonaut robots could be launched at a fraction of the cost of a human crew, using a solar powered or thermal electric powersource to recharge the batteries of the Robonauts as needed.
Teleoperated from groundside facilities through high-speed uplinks, such robots could easily assist or replace astronauts in assembling such a craft.
Jason
If all you need is a 60MT centrifuge, then 3 flights of an EELV could do it for you. No medium HLV needed.
And what neutral particles were you referring to? The lifetime of the neutron is such that none of those generated in the sun make it to the surface and the only other thing out there that is neutral are neutrinos which have a scattering cross section of 10^-44 cm2. Surrounding the ship with water would be good but using LH2 would be better, basically whatever has the highest proton density. For the highest energy cosmic rays they are so infrequent that they shouldn't be much of a problem (comparatively) to the sun which dominates the radiation environment at 1AU.Deflecting "radiation" only works for charged particles not for neutral ones.
AIUI, radiation is fairly easy. Generally you want as little ship around the crew as possible to minimize secondary radiation scattered from the hull. Then you have a small storm shelter surrounded by as much water and/or LH2 as possible. You also need a good solar flare warning system so they can get to the shelter in plenty of time.
I would rather see more studies to repel radiation then absorbing it.
All you have is scattering/absorption for them.
And, for the highest energy particles a) you can't predict timing/direction of them b) you can't afford same mass budget no matter deflection/absorption.
If all you need is a 60MT centrifuge, then 3 flights of an EELV could do it for you. No medium HLV needed.
That's only the case if the facility can be broken up into <25t components that would fit in a 5m Long PLF. Given that all elements will need to be pressuised to use, that isn't certain. Remember that we are dealing with what will be a large, continually moving structure. The fine precision balancing of the components will be very difficult to do in orbit; borderline-impossible using telerobotics.
A wide-body medium HLV would be able to launch the entire unit as a single load. With a tug of the type NASA is developing for the EELVs, it could even be attached to the rest of the spacecraft without a crewed assembly mission. That means one launch, pre-integrated and balanced with only one rendezvous.
For EELV, it means multiple (3+ launches), each with their own rendezvous (and failure modes) and then the components would need to be laboriously outfitted and balanced before they could be used. I cannot see the engineering fine tuning be possible by remote control. It will need a crew on-site to handle the precision fractional adjustments and the development of whole new methods to do so in freefall and likely in hard vacuum.
Could an "inflatable" module be used to create a much larger diameter centrifuge that could be launched inside a 5m EELV PLF?
And what neutral particles were you referring to? The lifetime of the neutron is such that none of those generated in the sun make it to the surface and the only other thing out there that is neutral are neutrinos which have a scattering cross section of 10^-44 cm2. Surrounding the ship with water would be good but using LH2 would be better, basically whatever has the highest proton density. For the highest energy cosmic rays they are so infrequent that they shouldn't be much of a problem (comparatively) to the sun which dominates the radiation environment at 1AU.Deflecting "radiation" only works for charged particles not for neutral ones.
AIUI, radiation is fairly easy. Generally you want as little ship around the crew as possible to minimize secondary radiation scattered from the hull. Then you have a small storm shelter surrounded by as much water and/or LH2 as possible. You also need a good solar flare warning system so they can get to the shelter in plenty of time.
I would rather see more studies to repel radiation then absorbing it.
All you have is scattering/absorption for them.
And, for the highest energy particles a) you can't predict timing/direction of them b) you can't afford same mass budget no matter deflection/absorption.
And what neutral particles were you referring to? The lifetime of the neutron is such that none of those generated in the sun make it to the surface and the only other thing out there that is neutral are neutrinos which have a scattering cross section of 10^-44 cm2. Surrounding the ship with water would be good but using LH2 would be better, basically whatever has the highest proton density. For the highest energy cosmic rays they are so infrequent that they shouldn't be much of a problem (comparatively) to the sun which dominates the radiation environment at 1AU.Deflecting "radiation" only works for charged particles not for neutral ones.
AIUI, radiation is fairly easy. Generally you want as little ship around the crew as possible to minimize secondary radiation scattered from the hull. Then you have a small storm shelter surrounded by as much water and/or LH2 as possible. You also need a good solar flare warning system so they can get to the shelter in plenty of time.
I would rather see more studies to repel radiation then absorbing it.
All you have is scattering/absorption for them.
And, for the highest energy particles a) you can't predict timing/direction of them b) you can't afford same mass budget no matter deflection/absorption.
Your still looking at a lot of weight and bulk added to the hull with water or LH2.
And what neutral particles were you referring to? The lifetime of the neutron is such that none of those generated in the sun make it to the surface and the only other thing out there that is neutral are neutrinos which have a scattering cross section of 10^-44 cm2. Surrounding the ship with water would be good but using LH2 would be better, basically whatever has the highest proton density. For the highest energy cosmic rays they are so infrequent that they shouldn't be much of a problem (comparatively) to the sun which dominates the radiation environment at 1AU.Deflecting "radiation" only works for charged particles not for neutral ones.
AIUI, radiation is fairly easy. Generally you want as little ship around the crew as possible to minimize secondary radiation scattered from the hull. Then you have a small storm shelter surrounded by as much water and/or LH2 as possible. You also need a good solar flare warning system so they can get to the shelter in plenty of time.
I would rather see more studies to repel radiation then absorbing it.
All you have is scattering/absorption for them.
And, for the highest energy particles a) you can't predict timing/direction of them b) you can't afford same mass budget no matter deflection/absorption.
Your still looking at a lot of weight and bulk added to the hull with water or LH2.
Depends. The LH2 can be the return fuel, or even more likely, the breaking burn fuel. Since you won't need it once you break from LEO, after all. You will need this LH2 anyways.
And what neutral particles were you referring to? The lifetime of the neutron is such that none of those generated in the sun make it to the surface and the only other thing out there that is neutral are neutrinos which have a scattering cross section of 10^-44 cm2.
But seriously guys, what does particle physics have to do with a Senate Committee wanting to build HLVs?
But seriously guys, what does particle physics have to do with a Senate Committee wanting to build HLVs?
It all stems from the question: If NASA did get BEO capability earlier than the Obama plan, would there even be anything useful to do with it? From that comes discussion of whether or not it is possible to carry out lengthy BEO missions with reasonable safety margins.
I know little about space radiation hazards, but it appears that solar neutrons are created during solar flare events (see e.g. arXiv:astro-ph/0509527v1), and so may be generated quite close to the surface. One AU is only ~8 light-minutes, and the energy spectra extend into the GeV, so some portion of the flux is indeed relativistic (thus with an extended effective lifetime). Offhand, it's not obvious that neutrons cannot constitute a radiation hazard in the inner solar system.And what neutral particles were you referring to? The lifetime of the neutron is such that none of those generated in the sun make it to the surface and the only other thing out there that is neutral are neutrinos which have a scattering cross section of 10^-44 cm2.
The lifetime of a neutron at rest is ~15min; however, at relativistic speeds their apparent lifetime is much longer. Also, neutron radiation is produced when cosmic rays hit certain surfaces and environments; for example, neutron radiation is a considerable Martian hazard, as the atmosphere is thick enough to produce a considerable neutron flux but not thick enough to impede it.
Not sure if this is old news here, but I just saw this in the NY Times:
Senate Panel Near Agreement on Bill to Roll Back NASA Changes
www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html)
True, but I have done these calculations before and the fact is the neutrons never make it to the surface of the sun because they are scattered and lose all their energy before they even make it to the surface. In fact, gamma rays produced in the core take years to make it to the surface and out into space. As far as solar flares go, the neutron flux is actually quite small ~10^-2 n/cm^2 so that really isn't much of an issue. The main problem is ionizing x-rays from fusion occurring near the surface during a flare or CME. The bulk of these are below 1MeV and can be shielded with a dense material such as lead. Only problem with this is that you would like to use as much of your mass fraction on things other than shielding as possible on any BEO mission.And what neutral particles were you referring to? The lifetime of the neutron is such that none of those generated in the sun make it to the surface and the only other thing out there that is neutral are neutrinos which have a scattering cross section of 10^-44 cm2.
The lifetime of a neutron at rest is ~15min; however, at relativistic speeds their apparent lifetime is much longer. Also, neutron radiation is produced when cosmic rays hit certain surfaces and environments; for example, neutron radiation is a considerable Martian hazard, as the atmosphere is thick enough to produce a considerable neutron flux but not thick enough to impede it.
Also, it is possible for nuclei to acquire an electron cloud again and have a neutral charge.
It's a hazard that currently is ill-quantified. The Bonner Ball Experiment (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/experiments/BBND.html) slated for the ISS should help us understand exactly how worried we should be about neutrally charged particle radiation.
So ULA wins, got it.Not sure if this is old news here, but I just saw this in the NY Times:
Senate Panel Near Agreement on Bill to Roll Back NASA Changes
www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html)
Thank you for posting. A little common sense goes a long way:
It would also slow down a rush to invest in commercial rockets by requiring companies to demonstrate their capabilities before receiving large contracts for delivering astronauts to the International Space Station.
Not sure if this is old news here, but I just saw this in the NY Times:
Senate Panel Near Agreement on Bill to Roll Back NASA Changes
www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html)
Thank you for posting. A little common sense goes a long way:QuoteIt would also slow down a rush to invest in commercial rockets by requiring companies to demonstrate their capabilities before receiving large contracts for delivering astronauts to the International Space Station.
A House subcommittee working on the 2011 budget last week agreed to finance NASA next year at $19 billion as requested by Mr. Obama, but sidestepped the controversy of what the money would be spent on by saying it would defer to what emerged in the NASA authorization.ISS, extra Shuttle launch, full Orion and HLV - keeping that lot within budget will be difficult.
ULA could also bring their launcher to manrated the fastest (2013) :) Add on boeings CST 100 capsule and we have a winner!So ULA wins, got it.Not sure if this is old news here, but I just saw this in the NY Times:
Senate Panel Near Agreement on Bill to Roll Back NASA Changes
www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html)
Thank you for posting. A little common sense goes a long way:
It would also slow down a rush to invest in commercial rockets by requiring companies to demonstrate their capabilities before receiving large contracts for delivering astronauts to the International Space Station.
Atlas v has a proven track record with one of the best success rates out there.
From the articleNot if the HLV is Direct :D But if the Sidemount people win out.................................QuoteA House subcommittee working on the 2011 budget last week agreed to finance NASA next year at $19 billion as requested by Mr. Obama, but sidestepped the controversy of what the money would be spent on by saying it would defer to what emerged in the NASA authorization.ISS, extra Shuttle launch, full Orion and HLV - keeping that lot within budget will be difficult.
So ULA wins, got it.Not sure if this is old news here, but I just saw this in the NY Times:
Senate Panel Near Agreement on Bill to Roll Back NASA Changes
www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html)
Thank you for posting. A little common sense goes a long way:
It would also slow down a rush to invest in commercial rockets by requiring companies to demonstrate their capabilities before receiving large contracts for delivering astronauts to the International Space Station.
Atlas v has a proven track record with one of the best success rates out there.
SpaceX has a capsule that is about to fly. The CST-100 is not even a blueprint yet.
I was exagerating a bit. But CCDev has just started. How far along can Boeing be?
Anyways, I am hoping that both proposals make it. But I am not sure why ULA should be seen as the front runner given the fact that SpaceX has a capsule and all they need is $100M for a LAS according to Elon Musk.
So ULA wins, got it.Not sure if this is old news here, but I just saw this in the NY Times:
Senate Panel Near Agreement on Bill to Roll Back NASA Changes
www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html)
Thank you for posting. A little common sense goes a long way:
It would also slow down a rush to invest in commercial rockets by requiring companies to demonstrate their capabilities before receiving large contracts for delivering astronauts to the International Space Station.
Atlas v has a proven track record with one of the best success rates out there.
I was exagerating a bit. But CCDev has just started. How far along can Boeing be?
Anyways, I am hoping that both proposals make it. But I am not sure why ULA should be seen as the front runner given the fact that SpaceX has a capsule and all they need is $100M for a LAS according to Elon Musk.
I guess you incorrectly assume that 50 million divided amongst many is a ton of money.
ULA has a much stronger record than SpaceX right now. It's just the way it is.
Not sure if this is old news here, but I just saw this in the NY Times:
Senate Panel Near Agreement on Bill to Roll Back NASA Changes
www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html)
Thank you for posting. A little common sense goes a long way:
It would also slow down a rush to invest in commercial rockets by requiring companies to demonstrate their capabilities before receiving large contracts for delivering astronauts to the International Space Station.
COTS style program with similar funding level and milestone payments, rather than a cost plus contract to just "go build us a crew launcher".
COTS style program with similar funding level and milestone payments, rather than a cost plus contract to just "go build us a crew launcher".
Why is this characterized as a "slow down"?
Not sure if this is old news here, but I just saw this in the NY Times:
Senate Panel Near Agreement on Bill to Roll Back NASA Changes
www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html)
Thank you for posting. A little common sense goes a long way:
It would also slow down a rush to invest in commercial rockets by requiring companies to demonstrate their capabilities before receiving large contracts for delivering astronauts to the International Space Station.
In the worst case, does this potentially mean that commercial companies don't get funds for developing crewed spacecraft until they've already demonstrated the capabilities for crewed spacecraft? That seems like a rather nasty catch-22.
In the best case, this is exactly the same as what was already going to be done under FY2011, funding CCDev and monitoring milestone successes before awarding crew contracts.
COTS style program with similar funding level and milestone payments, rather than a cost plus contract to just "go build us a crew launcher".
Why is this characterized as a "slow down"?
This administration made a irresponsible call with commercial companies while dumping CxP and not providing a future mission plan for NASA leaving everything up in the air ( as usual ).
Correct. And it is a call that Congress appears about to reverse. Rumblings of two extra flights.
This administration made a irresponsible call with commercial companies while dumping CxP and not providing a future mission plan for NASA leaving everything up in the air ( as usual ).
No, dumping CxP was not irresponsible. That was the most responsible part of the plan. Ending the shuttle before the commercial replacement is ready is the irresponsible call
This administration made a irresponsible call with commercial companies while dumping CxP and not providing a future mission plan for NASA leaving everything up in the air ( as usual ).
No, dumping CxP was not irresponsible. That was the most responsible part of the plan. Ending the shuttle before the commercial replacement is ready is the irresponsible call
Correct. And it is a call that Congress appears about to reverse. Rumblings of two extra flights.
This administration made a irresponsible call with commercial companies while dumping CxP and not providing a future mission plan for NASA leaving everything up in the air ( as usual ).
No, dumping CxP was not irresponsible. That was the most responsible part of the plan. Ending the shuttle before the commercial replacement is ready is the irresponsible call
Correct. And it is a call that Congress appears about to reverse. Rumblings of two extra flights.
This administration made a irresponsible call with commercial companies while dumping CxP and not providing a future mission plan for NASA leaving everything up in the air ( as usual ).
No, dumping CxP was not irresponsible. That was the most responsible part of the plan. Ending the shuttle before the commercial replacement is ready is the irresponsible call
They will only add STS-135 based on the letter from Nelson.
Correct. And it is a call that Congress appears about to reverse. Rumblings of two extra flights.
This administration made a irresponsible call with commercial companies while dumping CxP and not providing a future mission plan for NASA leaving everything up in the air ( as usual ).
No, dumping CxP was not irresponsible. That was the most responsible part of the plan. Ending the shuttle before the commercial replacement is ready is the irresponsible call
They will only add STS-135 based on the letter from Nelson.
Do they have enough tanks?
Atlas v has a proven track record with one of the best success rates out there.SpaceX has a capsule that is about to fly. The CST-100 is not even a blueprint yet.
But had COTS-D been funded in 2008, Boeing would have probably won the 2008 COTS award (and not Orbital).
Atlas v has a proven track record with one of the best success rates out there.SpaceX has a capsule that is about to fly. The CST-100 is not even a blueprint yet.
And neither has flown to ISS, which is the actual requirement in the Bill. ULA/Boeing/Bigelow are at a disadvantage as they may have to pay for that demo flight out of their own pocket, but this doesn't make Dragon a lock for the prize.
And hey, manned Cygnus was never out of the question...
But had COTS-D been funded in 2008, Boeing would have probably won the 2008 COTS award (and not Orbital).
Maybe; they were the best of the teams that proposed for COTS C/D, but they also had an apparently weaker business plan than Orbital.
And if COTS-D funding was obviously available, PlanetSpace may have been more successful in drumming up funding, thus making them more competitive with Boeing (notice they were ahead of Boeing before the resubmit).
I am guesing that the bill will say that a CRS-type contract can't be awarded until you have demonstrated capability under a new CCDev space act agreement. It kind of makes sense. But that's not what was done under COTS. The CRS contract was awarded in December 2008. Orbital had just signed its space act agreement early that year. Furthermore, SpaceX has already received $101 million under its CRS contract according to space.com (prior to having flown Falcon 9 and Dragon).
.
CRS is the actual resupply of ISS. It should not be surprising that SpaceX, and maybe even Orbital, have received some of that money. It would most likely be down payment on the order of long-lead items and material to minimize the time between COTS demo flights and CRS flights.
I am guesing that the bill will say that a CRS-type contract can't be awarded until you have demonstrated capability under a new CCDev space act agreement. It kind of makes sense. But that's not what was done under COTS. The CRS contract was awarded in December 2008. Orbital had just signed its space act agreement early that year. Furthermore, SpaceX has already received $101 million under its CRS contract according to space.com (prior to having flown Falcon 9 and Dragon).
COTS and CRS are two different things. Under COTS, both SpaceX and Orbital need to perform demo flights. None of those have happened as of yet. SpaceX will hopefully do the first one relatively soon. Orbital is expected to do the first one late summer/early fall next year.
CRS is the actual resupply of ISS. It should not be surprising that SpaceX, and maybe even Orbital, have received some of that money. It would most likely be down payment on the order of long-lead items and material to minimize the time between COTS demo flights and CRS flights.
.
CRS is the actual resupply of ISS. It should not be surprising that SpaceX, and maybe even Orbital, have received some of that money. It would most likely be down payment on the order of long-lead items and material to minimize the time between COTS demo flights and CRS flights.
Spacex has received progress payments for its first two CRS flights I believe. Since it is a service, the money isn't for hardware per say, it is for meeting integration milestones like completing a Mission Requirements and Allocation Document. This is similar to the Spacehab MIR Logistics missions.
Correct. And it is a call that Congress appears about to reverse. Rumblings of two extra flights.
They will only add STS-135 based on the letter from Nelson.
Do they have enough tanks?
STS-135 is the launch on need (LON) mission. So it already has a tank. There is talk of adding other missions using available parts or an older tank (a tank that was not foam certified). But Congress doesn't seem to be pursuing this. Chris wrote an article on this:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/12/nasa-evaluating-sts-135-addition-to-shuttle-manifest/
Nelson: compromise NASA authorization bill will pass next week ... "And it would accelerate development of a shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle that could serve as a government back-up if commercial launchers failed to offer crew taxi services in a safe and timely manner."
http://flametrench.flatoday.net/2010/07/nelson-compromise-nasa-authorization.html
Nelson: compromise NASA authorization bill will pass next week ... "And it would accelerate development of a shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle that could serve as a government back-up if commercial launchers failed to offer crew taxi services in a safe and timely manner."
http://flametrench.flatoday.net/2010/07/nelson-compromise-nasa-authorization.html
Pretty much the same here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html?_r=2
But the point of the bill is making that distinction between NASA defined goals and those of a developing commercial market eliminating the confusion that certain companies would be required to provide a specific service for NASA, hence the reduction of funding for commercial companies.
Nelson: compromise NASA authorization bill will pass next week ... "And it would accelerate development of a shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle that could serve as a government back-up if commercial launchers failed to offer crew taxi services in a safe and timely manner."
http://flametrench.flatoday.net/2010/07/nelson-compromise-nasa-authorization.html
Pretty much the same here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html?_r=2
But the point of the bill is making that distinction between NASA defined goals and those of a developing commercial market eliminating the confusion that certain companies would be required to provide a specific service for NASA, hence the reduction of funding for commercial companies.
Yes and both articles provide no new information that wasn't already in Nelson's letter:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22001.0
While saying it was not the committee's place to design rockets, Nelson said the giant launcher -- capable of lifting at least 75 metric tons -- should be largely derived from shuttle systems and likely would use solid rocket boosters, like the Constellation program's...
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.
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 (http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=6%3A7I%276D%26X%5BR%5B%2ES%40GOP4S%5EQ%3AO%225J%40%22%5FP%20%20%0A&urla=%25%2ARD%26%220%20%20%0A&urlb=%21%2A%20%20%20%0A&urlc=%21%2A0%20%20%0A&urld=%28%2A%22H%25%22%40%2AEUQX%20%0A&urle=%27%282D%27%23P%3EDW%40%20%20%0A)?
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.
I think that the concern was that commercial crew was being put on the critical path. It was going to be the only US-indigenous crew launch capability. With the development of an SD-HLV and Orion, that is no longer the case.
Although using the SD-HLV would be more expensive than the commercial option, it would also mean that the commercial providers are no longer in the position of having to get it right at any cost. In my view, Administrator Bolden's admission to Congress that commercial crew simply could not be allowed to fail under the President's proposals was the most damning comment about the proposals to date.
Because of the risk of cancellation of large multi-year programs, the HLV has more chance of failling (by being cancelled) than commercial crew does.
5 seg SRBs ...check.
J2...check.
Nelson said the giant launcher -- capable of lifting at least 75 metric tons
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.
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.
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.
When did ULA ask for that much?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.
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?
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....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.
When did ULA ask for that much?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.
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 (http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=6%3A7I%276D%26X%5BR%5B%2ES%40GOP4S%5EQ%3AO%225J%40%22%5FP%20%20%0A&urla=%25%2ARD%26%220%20%20%0A&urlb=%21%2A%20%20%20%0A&urlc=%21%2A0%20%20%0A&urld=%28%2A%22H%25%22%40%2AEUQX%20%0A&urle=%27%282D%27%23P%3EDW%40%20%20%0A)?
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?
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
...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 ?
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.
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 (http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=6%3A7I%276D%26X%5BR%5B%2ES%40GOP4S%5EQ%3AO%225J%40%22%5FP%20%20%0A&urla=%25%2ARD%26%220%20%20%0A&urlb=%21%2A%20%20%20%0A&urlc=%21%2A0%20%20%0A&urld=%28%2A%22H%25%22%40%2AEUQX%20%0A&urle=%27%282D%27%23P%3EDW%40%20%20%0A)?
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.
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.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, 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 -
Oh dear god no -
Not literally. Central core = the core fibre of HLV development, i.e. propulsion. Just Ares I.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/science/space/12rocket.html?_r=1QuoteMichael 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.
People should start to thank Obama. He is kind of like bad without regret, a shock jock if you will. He has become the ultimate in PC and that is really waking up America.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/science/space/12rocket.html?_r=1QuoteMichael 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.
Can anyone say exactly what Mr. Gass is referring to in the second case? For the first case, he refers to pad mods for SLC-41 (if DOD permits?) For the second, presumably that means a new VIF and MLP at a minimum, but does he also mean a whole new pad near SLC-41? By "heavier", does he also mean AV-Heavy + DEC, or full-blown AV Phase I? For < $2 billion total?
-Alex
If EELV is good enough for DOD, NOAA, and commercial operators, it's more than good enough for NASA.
Do you infer that from some other information than the quote above? It's not otherwise clear that he's suddenly changed rockets.Quotehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/science/space/12rocket.htmAIUI, the second case is Delta IV Heavy for launching Orion.
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.
Do you infer that from some other information than the quote above? It's not otherwise clear that he's suddenly changed rockets.
-Alex
Do you infer that from some other information than the quote above? It's not otherwise clear that he's suddenly changed rockets.Quotehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/science/space/12rocket.htmAIUI, the second case is Delta IV Heavy for launching Orion.
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.
-Alex
Delta IV Heavy Launch of Orion
Delta IV Heavy has launched 2 operational missions with 100% mission success
Human rating Delta IV Heavy is understood
– Addition of an Emergency Detection System (EDS)
– Separate launch pad with crew ingress/egress
– Additional reliability improvements options identified
Greater than 20% performance margin for both ISS and lunar missions
– Trajectories shaped to eliminate black zones
– DoD planned propulsion improvements benefit NASA
Benign launch and abort environments reduce risks for Orion
Affordable and credible costs
– Non-recurring ($800M pad, $500M human rating)
– Recurring ($300M/launch)
Available within 4.5 years from start
...
EELV Launch of a Commercial Human Spacecraft
Human rating impacts to flight-proven existing EELV are understood
– Addition of an Emergency Detection System (EDS)
– Separate VIF/MLP or pad with crew ingress/egress
Low non-recurring ($400M) and recurring costs ($130M/launch)
Human rated Atlas V offered by numerous Prime Contractors during NASA COTS competitions
– Ongoing integration of entrepreneurial and traditional prime designed commercial crew vehicles
Non-crewed missions provide vehicle characterization and flight data prior to first crewed mission
EELV is not the critical path to launch a commercial crew transfer vehicle
– Launch within 4 years of start
According to the Orlando Sentinel, the current draft of the 'compromise' bill cuts robotic precursor missions, technology development, and commercial crew funding down to a small fraction of the FY2011 proposal:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nelson-overturns-nasa-plans-20100711,0,2094998.story
Seems like a big win for ATK, though.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nelson-overturns-nasa-plans-20100711,0,2094998.story
Seems like a big win for ATK, though.
According to the Orlando Sentinel, the current draft of the 'compromise' bill cuts robotic precursor missions, technology development, and commercial crew funding down to a small fraction of the FY2011 proposal:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nelson-overturns-nasa-plans-20100711,0,2094998.story
Seems like a big win for ATK, though.
$150M in FY 2011, $275M in FY 2012, and $464M in FY 2013 - for a total of $889M.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nelson-overturns-nasa-plans-20100711,0,2094998.story
Seems like a big win for ATK, though.
From the article:
'[The bill] orders NASA to "utilize existing contracts, investments, workforce, industrial base, and capabilities from the space shuttle and former Orion and Ares I projects." This could save billions in termination costs but force NASA to continue using ATK's solid-rocket motors that the White House had hoped to scrap in favor of a liquid-fueled rocket'
There is no existing contract for a strap-on booster from ATK. (The Ares I contract with ATK is for development of the first stage of a launch vehicle.) So that contract would need to be changed. If they change it to be a contract for development of a strap-on booster, that's a step in the right direction! If they made it a contract for a four-segment strap-on booster (i.e. a Shuttle booster with newly certified materials and processes) that would be another step.
There wouldn't seem to be the option of replacing it with a contract for strap-on liquid boosters, though. Yet.
With respect to "commercial" crew, those numbers, if they are accurate, can change. To throw large amounts of money at something where requirements are unknown, what capabilities there will be are unknown, how many are desired, the public/private funding arrangement is unknown, total cost is unknown, schedule is unknown, etc would be short-sighted. Perhaps those foundational questions should finally be answered before committing to something.
According to NW, the commercial crew figures in the bill are as follows:Quote$150M in FY 2011, $275M in FY 2012, and $464M in FY 2013 - for a total of $889M.
With respect to "commercial" crew, those numbers, if they are accurate, can change. To throw large amounts of money at something where requirements are unknown, what capabilities there will be are unknown, how many are desired, the public/private funding arrangement is unknown, total cost is unknown, schedule is unknown, etc would be short-sighted. Perhaps those foundational questions should finally be answered before committing to something.
Mike, I know you have a heartburn with the shuttle program ending like it is, but those questions do not need to be known at this time. The is SOP. This is no different than any other new initiative. Money is always budgeted way before all that is known. Same applies for the Flagship technology Demonstrators, or the new exploration spacecraft, etc.
That is what the money in the budget is for in the early years, to answer those questions and once they are, the budget will be refined.
Constellation started the same way.
With respect to "commercial" crew, those numbers, if they are accurate, can change. To throw large amounts of money at something where requirements are unknown, what capabilities there will be are unknown, how many are desired, the public/private funding arrangement is unknown, total cost is unknown, schedule is unknown, etc would be short-sighted. Perhaps those foundational questions should finally be answered before committing to something.
Mike, I know you have a heartburn with the shuttle program ending like it is, but those questions do not need to be known at this time. The is SOP. This is no different than any other new initiative. Money is always budgeted way before all that is known.
...
Constellation started the same way.
No, there is a big difference. Constellation started six years before shuttle retirement so there was plenty of time to plan the transition of the workforce. The FY11 plan was sprung with less than one year left in shuttle and that creates a disconnect in the workforce. At JSC, the existing Shuttle/CxP contractor workforce will be laid off and dispersed months before any new contracts can be awarded for things like Flagship Technologies. In my opinion, the plan to execute Flagship Technologies lacks credibility because of that.Jorge,
EELV is the American launch Fleet, STS and SDLV are the launch fleet of NASA alone. If EELV is good enough for DOD, and commercial operators, it's more than good enough for NASA.
[edit, thanks Jim]
How many of them have seen the Bill?
The bill isn't finalized yet.
I know. Which means it has not been released yet. You and the "slashdot group" have not seen it, read it, etc.
All of this reminds me of the Arizona immigration bill. Lets all jump to conclusions, bash it, etc without even reading it.
How many of them have seen the Bill?
The bill isn't finalized yet.
I know. Which means it has not been released yet. You and the "slashdot group" have not seen it, read it, etc.
All of this reminds me of the Arizona immigration bill. Lets all jump to conclusions, bash it, etc without even reading it.
If a bill has been finalized and released, you can't influence its contents. (of course, you can influence future versions of the bill during the negotiation process between the house/senate, although it's impossible to read those bills before they're released as well)
But slashing funding for commercial crew in FY2012 and 2013 by more than half is not an attempt at a compromise.
OV 106 the 'this is not wal mart' comments. Unwittingly you hit the nail on the head.
Rant ON
Running Wal Mart is an order of complexity more difficult than building or launching a rocket. Getting 120,000 different stock keeping units to over 10,000 retail outlets in 20 + countries every day. This involves over 2,000,000 people and results in over $1,000,000,000 of cash going through the system EVERY day.
Ambient, chilled, frozen; pallets, packs and containers; Fresh, tinned, packed. You don't really get how difficult that all is do you? Have you seen a modern regional distribution centre, or one of the automated cage packing units? Wal-mart only looks simple because they have made it so. The modern grocery supply chain is one of the wonders of the modern world, more complex a machine than a mere Saturn V. A Rose gets from a Kenyan field to a Wal-Mart in Little Rock in less than 24 hours and costs the customer less than a $ with Wal-mart still making a turn.
RANT off
And yes I do work for a global retailer ;-)
Trimmed the absolutely pointless slashdot posts.
But slashing funding for commercial crew in FY2012 and 2013 by more than half is not an attempt at a compromise.
And there is the problem.
You call it "commercial", yet demand it to be government-funded. How about just getting some of the details of the public/private partnership that will at least maybe even vaguely outline and propose who will pay for what.
With that said, I imagine one's reaction to preserving an SRM-based launcher depends upon one's support for Shuttle/Direct. I find it disconcerting that a defense company as ATK would attempt to determine NASA's direction based on politics alone, instead of improving or refining their product. This is bad legislation, as Congressional attempts to dictate NASA's technical direction rarely end in success.
But slashing funding for commercial crew in FY2012 and 2013 by more than half is not an attempt at a compromise.
And there is the problem.
You call it "commercial", yet demand it to be government-funded. How about just getting some of the details of the public/private partnership that will at least maybe even vaguely outline and propose who will pay for what.
That level of detail will not be in the legislation. In any event, commercial crew is intented to be similar to COTS/CRS. It's not a public/private partnership, it's a type of procurement where NASA buys services from commercial companies. NASA first pays commercial companies for milestones achieved in the development of the service through space act agreements such as CCDev or COTS. Once they have proven capability, they can be chosen for a CRS type contract.
Although NASA requires that commercial companies put some skin into the game, I wouldn't call this a public/private partnership. NASA is creating the market for the most part. But companies do get credits for having a business case for customers outside of NASA.
OV 106 the 'this is not wal mart' comments. Unwittingly you hit the nail on the head.I *sold* to WalMart financial management systems for those SKUs in my firms retail vertical market segment. Most retailers have 5-6% net profit from the buyer down to the end of the chain - sometimes WalMart does double or triple this by "cherry picking" and by having ruthless store managers. It is not an easy business.
Rant ON
Running Wal Mart is an order of complexity more difficult than building or launching a rocket. Getting 120,000 different stock keeping units to over 10,000 retail outlets in 20 + countries every day. This involves over 2,000,000 people and results in over $1,000,000,000 of cash going through the system EVERY day.
Ambient, chilled, frozen; pallets, packs and containers; Fresh, tinned, packed. You don't really get how difficult that all is do you? Have you seen a modern regional distribution centre, or one of the automated cage packing units? Wal-mart only looks simple because they have made it so. The modern grocery supply chain is one of the wonders of the modern world, more complex a machine than a mere Saturn V. A Rose gets from a Kenyan field to a Wal-Mart in Little Rock in less than 24 hours and costs the customer less than a $ with Wal-mart still making a turn.
RANT off
And yes I do work for a global retailer ;-)
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).
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).
Am I correct in my assessment that a 75mt requirement would exclude the J-130?
I must point out that what the Orlando Sentinel has done is serve as a vehicle for a DC "trial balloon" -- a leak to judge the public reaction to an unpublicized piece of legislation. Reaction is what Nelson and others are looking for, with the details of the legislation to (possibly) be adjusted based on said reaction.
With that said, I imagine one's reaction to preserving an SRM-based launcher depends upon one's support for Shuttle/Direct. I find it disconcerting that a defense company as ATK would attempt to determine NASA's direction based on politics alone, instead of improving or refining their product. This is bad legislation, as Congressional attempts to dictate NASA's technical direction rarely end in success.
Patience my young apprentices - patience.Yes. And I'm glad that things are coming to a head.
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).
Am I correct in my assessment that a 75mt requirement would exclude the J-130?
No, some J-130-ish version is exactly in that ballpark.
We are approaching the endgame nowYes
and this Congress policy will get passed either this year or the next and I really doubt Obama is that bothered about NASA to veto it this year.No
Direct/Boeing SD-HLV has won ...I don't think so.
... and good job too as we will all get to see some guaranteed exciting manned BEO exploration again before we are all too old to care ;).Be careful it may also be doomed by an unfortunate selection.
We should at least get an Apollo 8 redux in HD before the decade is out ;).And this is good ... how?
There is an unreleased study, commisioned by General Bolden, that is rumored to overwhelmingly point to a SDLV as the right choice when compared to the other options.
This study must be fairly widely distributed, as an USA employee as yourself has seen it. If it does indeed show that Shuttle-derived wins hands-down on capabilities, development cost and long term operational costs, I would have thought that a motivated insider would have leaked it already. It would shorten the debate considerably.
We should at least get an Apollo 8 redux in HD before the decade is out ;).And this is good ... how?
We should at least get an Apollo 8 redux in HD before the decade is out ;).And this is good ... how?
An inspiring new beginning of the Flexible Path exploration of the Solar System as well as first real test of Orion.
Furthermore, I have no idea why you would think or assume I have seen an unreleased NASA HQ internal study not to mention violate confidentiality and "leak it". I do not know why so many just assume all of us who work in this field will just openly publish and "leak" anything and everything.
We should at least get an Apollo 8 redux in HD before the decade is out ;).And this is good ... how?
An inspiring new beginning of the Flexible Path exploration of the Solar System as well as first real test of Orion.
If it costs anywhere near what apollo 8 did and does not have signifigant new capability it will be canceled just as fast.
Took the words right out of my mouth.If it costs anywhere near what apollo 8 did and does not have signifigant new capability it will be canceled just as fast.We should at least get an Apollo 8 redux in HD before the decade is out ;).And this is good ... how?
An inspiring new beginning of the Flexible Path exploration of the Solar System as well as first real test of Orion.
Let's all be a little careful to not characterize what is actually in the bill based solely on a single news reporter's interpretation of an early draft of the bill. For all you know the actual bill bears little resemblance to the draft, but then again it just might. So there's the rub - you just don't know what's actually in it, except this; I can assure you that there is a *LOT* of blood - sweat - and tears wrapped up in it together with lots of sleepless nights and 36-hour days.
Patience my young apprentices - patience.
Let's all be a little careful to not characterize what is actually in the bill based solely on a single news reporter's interpretation of an early draft of the bill. For all you know the actual bill bears little resemblance to the draft, but then again it just might. So there's the rub - you just don't know what's actually in it, except this; I can assure you that there is a *LOT* of blood - sweat - and tears wrapped up in it together with lots of sleepless nights and 36-hour days.
Patience my young apprentices - patience.
A beacon of common sense shines through the fog and static.
Well said clongton.
The mark-up is Thursday... some of us will wait until at least then.
If you can't disagree with a bill you've never personally read, then why support a bill you've never personally read? The logic cuts both ways.
Let's all be a little careful to not characterize what is actually in the bill based solely on a single news reporter's interpretation of an early draft of the bill. For all you know the actual bill bears little resemblance to the draft, but then again it just might. So there's the rub - you just don't know what's actually in it, except this; I can assure you that there is a *LOT* of blood - sweat - and tears wrapped up in it together with lots of sleepless nights and 36-hour days.
Patience my young apprentices - patience.
A beacon of common sense shines through the fog and static.
Well said clongton.
The mark-up is Thursday... some of us will wait until at least then.
If this is a trial balloon, it needs to be popped before Thursday.
I'll be interested in seeing the bill language, but we're going to be waiting a good deal longer for an outcome on this bill -- I think we're going to have to wait to see what comes out of both houses, and perhaps by then we'll have some idea about whether the President will veto it.Let's all be a little careful to not characterize what is actually in the bill based solely on a single news reporter's interpretation of an early draft of the bill. For all you know the actual bill bears little resemblance to the draft, but then again it just might. So there's the rub - you just don't know what's actually in it, except this; I can assure you that there is a *LOT* of blood - sweat - and tears wrapped up in it together with lots of sleepless nights and 36-hour days.
Patience my young apprentices - patience.
A beacon of common sense shines through the fog and static.
Well said clongton.
The mark-up is Thursday... some of us will wait until at least then.
We should at least get an Apollo 8 redux in HD before the decade is out ;).And this is good ... how?
An inspiring new beginning of the Flexible Path exploration of the Solar System as well as first real test of Orion.
If it costs anywhere near what apollo 8 did and does not have signifigant new capability it will be canceled just as fast.
Took the words right out of my mouth.If it costs anywhere near what apollo 8 did and does not have signifigant new capability it will be canceled just as fast.We should at least get an Apollo 8 redux in HD before the decade is out ;).And this is good ... how?
An inspiring new beginning of the Flexible Path exploration of the Solar System as well as first real test of Orion.
Its just as important ... how you get to a place ... as that you get there.
I loved it at the time ... the ballsy move to jump ahead and use the Saturn V. It was at the time exquisite!
In 20/20 hindsight it had repercussions. By taking the Soviets out of the running (they had rushed N1 into failure, had a bad run with Proton then, Zond was a complete mess), the setup for the walkaway from the Apollo spectacle was engaged.
We can't do this "hurry up and wait" arsenal system nonsense anymore.
We postpone BEO.
If this is a trial balloon, it needs to be popped before Thursday.
As always, sound rationale.
You misunderstand. Don't need radical cost reduction. Merely need to not have the most costliest to run LV on the planet that we have to shut down after we get it to fly.Took the words right out of my mouth.If it costs anywhere near what apollo 8 did and does not have signifigant new capability it will be canceled just as fast.We should at least get an Apollo 8 redux in HD before the decade is out ;).And this is good ... how?
An inspiring new beginning of the Flexible Path exploration of the Solar System as well as first real test of Orion.
Its just as important ... how you get to a place ... as that you get there.
I loved it at the time ... the ballsy move to jump ahead and use the Saturn V. It was at the time exquisite!
In 20/20 hindsight it had repercussions. By taking the Soviets out of the running (they had rushed N1 into failure, had a bad run with Proton then, Zond was a complete mess), the setup for the walkaway from the Apollo spectacle was engaged.
We can't do this "hurry up and wait" arsenal system nonsense anymore.
We postpone BEO.
Any new kerolox HLV will not be radically cheaper or better than a SD-HLV and a new VASIMR upper stage could fit on to either so what exactly are we waiting for ? Also DoD/NASA collaborations normally end in tears and acrimony so they are better off with separate rockets, engines and pads so they can do their own things in their own time not hindered, dependent or compromised by each other.
Seize this moment for it may not come round again.
You misunderstand. Don't need radical cost reduction. Merely need to not have the most costliest to run LV on the planet that we have to shut down after we get it to fly.Took the words right out of my mouth.If it costs anywhere near what apollo 8 did and does not have signifigant new capability it will be canceled just as fast.We should at least get an Apollo 8 redux in HD before the decade is out ;).And this is good ... how?
An inspiring new beginning of the Flexible Path exploration of the Solar System as well as first real test of Orion.
Its just as important ... how you get to a place ... as that you get there.
I loved it at the time ... the ballsy move to jump ahead and use the Saturn V. It was at the time exquisite!
In 20/20 hindsight it had repercussions. By taking the Soviets out of the running (they had rushed N1 into failure, had a bad run with Proton then, Zond was a complete mess), the setup for the walkaway from the Apollo spectacle was engaged.
We can't do this "hurry up and wait" arsenal system nonsense anymore.
We postpone BEO.
Any new kerolox HLV will not be radically cheaper or better than a SD-HLV and a new VASIMR upper stage could fit on to either so what exactly are we waiting for ? Also DoD/NASA collaborations normally end in tears and acrimony so they are better off with separate rockets, engines and pads so they can do their own things in their own time not hindered, dependent or compromised by each other.
Seize this moment for it may not come round again.
We need to have something we can "throttle up" when economy affords ... and "throttle down" when it can't.
Augustine said with Ares I it would be too expensive to operate - must be shut down after started up. And you think Ares V (other HLV) is cheaper to operate? No sir. No way.
Yes there is a way to do HSF. But your budgetary footprint doesn't allow much leeway here.
You can cry for the moon all you want. The politico's can fill your head with all sorts of unfundable dreams. Still won't get you to the moon, anymore then sitting on a huge pile of dynamite sticks will when it blows. :)
That level of detail will not be in the legislation. In any event, commercial crew is intented to be similar to COTS and CRS. It's not a public/private partnership, it's a type of procurement where NASA buys services from commercial companies. NASA first pays commercial companies for milestones achieved in the development of the service through space act agreements such as was the case for CCDev and COTS. Once they have proven capability, they can be chosen for a CRS type contract.
Although NASA requires that commercial companies put some skin into the game, I wouldn't call this a public/private partnership. NASA is creating the market for the most part. But companies do get credits during the CCDev selection process for having a business case for customers outside of NASA.
If this is a trial balloon, it needs to be popped before Thursday.
As always, sound rationale.
I'm glad we agree on this. :)
Yeap, and in the long run giving NASA it's own HLV that it does not share with others will do more to hurt space exploration in general than simply finding a way for NASA to share costs.
Yeap, and in the long run giving NASA it's own HLV that it does not share with others will do more to hurt space exploration in general than simply finding a way for NASA to share costs.
The SD-HLV could be used for any future ultra heavy DoD payloads too bringing down unit costs for NASA.
"they don't need HLV "
Yeap, and in the long run giving NASA it's own HLV that it does not share with others will do more to hurt space exploration in general than simply finding a way for NASA to share costs.
The SD-HLV could be used for any future ultra heavy DoD payloads too bringing down unit costs for NASA.
Trouble is they don't need HLV and havent done a shuttle dod mission since the 80ies.
If this is a trial balloon, it needs to be popped before Thursday.
As always, sound rationale.
I'm glad we agree on this. :)
Absolutely. Obviously your insight is impeciable. I mean anyone who can condemn something outright with clearly detailed facts and rationale behind them when they openly admit they know next to nothing about it is impressive.
Another type of trial balloon in politics is to venture an idea that a politician or group of politicians might by trying out to see if they should push for a law based on the idea. If the public seems to respond with favor to the idea, then the politicians may go forth with trying to create a law or policy change since they believe there is support for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_balloon
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-trial-balloon.htmQuoteAnother type of trial balloon in politics is to venture an idea that a politician or group of politicians might by trying out to see if they should push for a law based on the idea. If the public seems to respond with favor to the idea, then the politicians may go forth with trying to create a law or policy change since they believe there is support for it.
I suspect that the public reaction to the trial balloon will have the result that the bill presented on Thursday will be quite different, but time will tell.
I suspect that the public reaction to the trial balloon will have the result that the bill presented on Thursday will be quite different, but time will tell.
"they don't need HLV "The SD-HLV could be used for any future ultra heavy DoD payloads too bringing down unit costs for NASA.
Trouble is they don't need HLV and havent done a shuttle dod mission since the 80ies.
actually....................
Saw they news btw, so Nelson is going to cut commercial development funding? Potential changes to the already contract 12 f 9+dragon flights??
I guess I was right, Backlash: Anger over the fy 2011 nonplan leads to an irrational restriction of commercial oppertunities :P
From one end of the scale to the other and back again, where does the rollercoaster stop?
Me personally I think if this goes ahead NASA will get a pyrrhic victory. With no craft to launch, no missions other than ISS via Soyuz, it will be easier and easier to cut NASA’s budget. The process of BEO spaceflight slipping further and further into the future with little meaningful progress made toward it will continue until one day an administration facing big time budget problems axes NASA.
What's in the draft?I suspect that the public reaction to the trial balloon will have the result that the bill presented on Thursday will be quite different, but time will tell.
Quite different how? That's exactly the point, you do NOT know what was in the draft.
If this is a trial balloon, it needs to be popped before Thursday.
As always, sound rationale.
I'm glad we agree on this. :)
Absolutely. Obviously your insight is impeciable. I mean anyone who can condemn something outright with clearly detailed facts and rationale behind them when they openly admit they know next to nothing about it is impressive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_balloon
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-trial-balloon.htmQuoteAnother type of trial balloon in politics is to venture an idea that a politician or group of politicians might by trying out to see if they should push for a law based on the idea. If the public seems to respond with favor to the idea, then the politicians may go forth with trying to create a law or policy change since they believe there is support for it.
I suspect that the public reaction to the trial balloon will have the result that the bill presented on Thursday will be quite different, but time will tell.
"they don't need HLV "The SD-HLV could be used for any future ultra heavy DoD payloads too bringing down unit costs for NASA.
Trouble is they don't need HLV and havent done a shuttle dod mission since the 80ies.
actually....................
Actually... what? There is no reason to believe that DoD has any need for an HLV (i.e., something significantly larger than Delta IV Heavy).
Me personally I think if this goes ahead NASA will get a pyrrhic victory. With no craft to launch, no missions other than ISS via Soyuz, it will be easier and easier to cut NASA’s budget. The process of BEO spaceflight slipping further and further into the future with little meaningful progress made toward it will continue until one day an administration facing big time budget problems axes NASA.
The bill that Nelson is reportedly pushing leaves me wondering what's in it for Florida. It's obviously good for Utah, but that's a long way from Florida. CSF says it's bad for Florida. The scenario you outline seems quite plausible; that's bad for Florida too. What Nelson should want is a high flight rate, but he seems to be in favor of anything but.
Could it be that if Nelson gets his way he will then go back to pushing for ridiculous annual SRB test flights? Has Nelson some ulterior motive, perhaps? (If he thinks his Shuttle flight in 1986--surely one of the more outrageous congressional junkets ever--was a reasonable use of taxpayer funds, then anything is possible.)
Direct needs 8.4 billion for 4 years at MOST. And thats based on purposeful overestimations to protect against design changes. It does not need 11.4 billion over 3 years in any iteration.Saw they news btw, so Nelson is going to cut commercial development funding? Potential changes to the already contract 12 f 9+dragon flights??
I guess I was right, Backlash: Anger over the fy 2011 nonplan leads to an irrational restriction of commercial oppertunities :P
From one end of the scale to the other and back again, where does the rollercoaster stop?
It is bit more complicated than that. Nelson knows that 19 billion is all the administration wants to spend on NASA and that is all NASA will get. Congress will not greatly increase NASA’s budget. Whatever changes he wants have to be divided that way. Which means something has to lose. Me personally I think if this goes ahead NASA will get a pyrrhic victory. With no craft to launch, no missions other than ISS via Soyuz, it will be easier and easier to cut NASA’s budget. The process of BEO spaceflight slipping further and further into the future with little meaningful progress made toward it will continue until one day an administration facing big time budget problems axes NASA.
Me personally I think if this goes ahead NASA will get a pyrrhic victory. With no craft to launch, no missions other than ISS via Soyuz, it will be easier and easier to cut NASA’s budget. The process of BEO spaceflight slipping further and further into the future with little meaningful progress made toward it will continue until one day an administration facing big time budget problems axes NASA.
The bill that Nelson is reportedly pushing leaves me wondering what's in it for Florida. It's obviously good for Utah, but that's a long way from Florida. CSF says it's bad for Florida. The scenario you outline seems quite plausible; that's bad for Florida too. What Nelson should want is a high flight rate, but he seems to be in favor of anything but.
Could it be that if Nelson gets his way he will then go back to pushing for ridiculous annual SRB test flights? Has Nelson some ulterior motive, perhaps? (If he thinks his Shuttle flight in 1986--surely one of the more outrageous congressional junkets ever--was a reasonable use of taxpayer funds, then anything is possible.)
Nelson is stuck atm. The opposition to fy2011 has different reasons than he for disagreeing with it. Utah would benefit little from commercial crew. He has a choice oppose fy2011 alone or try to working with other senators and unfortunately he brings little compatible with the oppositions wishes to the table.
Direct needs 8.4 billion for 4 years at MOST. And thats based on purposeful overestimations to protect against design changes. It does not need 11.4 billion over 3 years in any iteration.Saw they news btw, so Nelson is going to cut commercial development funding? Potential changes to the already contract 12 f 9+dragon flights??
I guess I was right, Backlash: Anger over the fy 2011 nonplan leads to an irrational restriction of commercial oppertunities :P
From one end of the scale to the other and back again, where does the rollercoaster stop?
It is bit more complicated than that. Nelson knows that 19 billion is all the administration wants to spend on NASA and that is all NASA will get. Congress will not greatly increase NASA’s budget. Whatever changes he wants have to be divided that way. Which means something has to lose. Me personally I think if this goes ahead NASA will get a pyrrhic victory. With no craft to launch, no missions other than ISS via Soyuz, it will be easier and easier to cut NASA’s budget. The process of BEO spaceflight slipping further and further into the future with little meaningful progress made toward it will continue until one day an administration facing big time budget problems axes NASA.
Nothing has to lose if you do it right. So this is ethier sidemount or something else (I smell griffin again............)
Me personally I think if this goes ahead NASA will get a pyrrhic victory. With no craft to launch, no missions other than ISS via Soyuz, it will be easier and easier to cut NASA’s budget. The process of BEO spaceflight slipping further and further into the future with little meaningful progress made toward it will continue until one day an administration facing big time budget problems axes NASA.
The bill that Nelson is reportedly pushing leaves me wondering what's in it for Florida. It's obviously good for Utah, but that's a long way from Florida. CSF says it's bad for Florida. The scenario you outline seems quite plausible; that's bad for Florida too. What Nelson should want is a high flight rate, but he seems to be in favor of anything but.
Could it be that if Nelson gets his way he will then go back to pushing for ridiculous annual SRB test flights? Has Nelson some ulterior motive, perhaps? (If he thinks his Shuttle flight in 1986--surely one of the more outrageous congressional junkets ever--was a reasonable use of taxpayer funds, then anything is possible.)
Nelson is stuck atm. The opposition to fy2011 has different reasons than he for disagreeing with it. Utah would benefit little from commercial crew. He has a choice oppose fy2011 alone or try to working with other senators and unfortunately he brings little compatible with the oppositions wishes to the table.
Nelson is facing an awful lot of pressure. Voters stand to loose many jobs in Florida after STS (and Texas mind you) , if there is no follow on HLV. Congress critters face the same problem and also pork loss so they are applying pressure.
Personally, I think Nelson would like to keep more commercial crew, pressure is forcing him to do otherwise.
I am a pro union guy, but sometimes when people fight hard to keep the past (big NASA only spaceflight) they lock out the future (commercial space, and more useful careers). A good example would be GM. They had major problems since the 70ies and esp. 80ies, but were unable to handle them. If not for the SUV craze of the 90ies they would have gone bankrupt then. Ford on the other hand saw that all was not quite well, took action and avoided going bankrupt. GM on the other hand kept running hoping that good times would return and people would return in droves and it ran into a wall.
Direct needs 8.4 billion for 4 years at MOST. And thats based on purposeful overestimations to protect against design changes. It does not need 11.4 billion over 3 years in any iteration.Saw they news btw, so Nelson is going to cut commercial development funding? Potential changes to the already contract 12 f 9+dragon flights??
I guess I was right, Backlash: Anger over the fy 2011 nonplan leads to an irrational restriction of commercial oppertunities :P
From one end of the scale to the other and back again, where does the rollercoaster stop?
It is bit more complicated than that. Nelson knows that 19 billion is all the administration wants to spend on NASA and that is all NASA will get. Congress will not greatly increase NASA’s budget. Whatever changes he wants have to be divided that way. Which means something has to lose. Me personally I think if this goes ahead NASA will get a pyrrhic victory. With no craft to launch, no missions other than ISS via Soyuz, it will be easier and easier to cut NASA’s budget. The process of BEO spaceflight slipping further and further into the future with little meaningful progress made toward it will continue until one day an administration facing big time budget problems axes NASA.
Nothing has to lose if you do it right. So this is ethier sidemount or something else (I smell griffin again............)
I don’t buy direct’s numbers. Direct was begun as a project to fix Cxp, not economize the space program for the long term. I have a feeling that those number maybe a bit too optimistic. These are numbers submitted by people trying to save jobs in the short term not by people looking out for NASA’s long term interests. If you have to design new engines, new fuel tanks, new software, you might as well build a new rocket. If you keep the SRB, VAB, and crawler in use as they are now you have lost an opportunity to reduce costs. If we retain two separate workforces NASA and the EELV workforce with taxpayer money it is going to be extra expensive. If you reduce the flight rate of your HLV to once or twice a year, it will make the shuttle look cheap.
I am a pro union guy, but sometimes when people fight hard to keep the past (big NASA only spaceflight) they lock out the future (commercial space, and more useful careers). A good example would be GM. They had major problems since the 70ies and esp. 80ies, but were unable to handle them. If not for the SUV craze of the 90ies they would have gone bankrupt then. Ford on the other hand saw that all was not quite well, took action and avoided going bankrupt. GM on the other hand kept running hoping that good times would return and people would return in droves and it ran into a wall.
GM did one thing right in creating Saturn with its unique management and labor structure, but of course GM corporate culture eventually assimilated the division and ultimately killed it. I still miss my Spring Hill built SL2 with its dent resistant plastic body panels! :) I put 220,000 mostly trouble free miles on that car.
I think the radical NASA makeover might meet a little less resistance if it were being proposed by a decidedly pro-space exploration president, rather than one who is seen as anti-space and whose true motives are questioned by many (myself included - I don't buy the pie in the sky promises for 2025 and beyond in exchange for gutting everything we have today).
That level of detail will not be in the legislation. In any event, commercial crew is intented to be similar to COTS and CRS. It's not a public/private partnership, it's a type of procurement where NASA buys services from commercial companies. NASA first pays commercial companies for milestones achieved in the development of the service through space act agreements such as was the case for CCDev and COTS. Once they have proven capability, they can be chosen for a CRS type contract.
Although NASA requires that commercial companies put some skin into the game, I wouldn't call this a public/private partnership. NASA is creating the market for the most part. But companies do get credits during the CCDev selection process for having a business case for customers outside of NASA.
COTS required matching funding from the commercial company. ULA, one of the two obvious front-runners, have already stated they are not willing to put that sort of money up. Seems unlikely SpaceX would either just yet.
Even if one or both were willing to 'put some skin in the game', it seems likely development would proceed at a much slower pace than we would all like.
On the other hand, $889m over the next 3 years is not something to be sneezed at. SpaceX said they need $270m over 3 years. ULA said they need $400m to get Atlas V ready. That leaves $200m+ for CST-100 or whatever.
Edit $ amounts
4. What is the approximate dollar magnitude of the minimum NASA investment necessary to ensure the success of your company’s CCT development and demonstration effort? What is the approximate government fiscal year phasing of this investment from award to completion of a crewed orbital flight demonstration? What percentage of the total development cost would the NASA contribution represent?
Any new kerolox HLV will not be radically cheaper or better than a SD-HLV and a new VASIMR upper stage could fit on to either so what exactly are we waiting for ? Also DoD/NASA collaborations normally end in tears and acrimony so they are better off with separate rockets, engines and pads so they can do their own things in their own time not hindered, dependent or compromised by each other.a) For what value of the gravitational constant do you think VASIMR is an upper stage?
Seize this moment for it may not come round again.
...
Also, for all those commentators bringing up the costs of DIRECT: remember that the projected development costs for J-130 will probably not get you any farther than Apollo-8 redux (about ~$10 billion, when said and done). You must also budget and wait for JUS -- which is the whole point of the vehicle -- and, meanwhile, budget paying to maintain the entire SDHLV infrastructure while not flying BEO missions, to maintain the entire SDHLV personnel base and skillset.
We can afford to do this.
It's not clear we can afford to have much in the way of actual payloads, technology, or BEO missions to launch on it once it's ready, and you've gone around the moon for the TV cameras.
-Alex
...
I don't think that COTS necessarely required matching funds, they required that you be able to finance your project if NASA funding was insufficient. For example, Kipler was required to come up with $500 million for their project. The requirement for SpaceX funding was likely much less than that because their project was cheaper than Kistler's. Musk has only invested $100 million in SpaceX.
In order to maximize capability coverage, participants are expected to secure additional funds to supplement the NASA funding as shown above.
When operational, you'll be paying HLV & Orion infrastructure & operations costs, which are expected to be similar in total to Shuttle. That frees up development funds for BEO payloads while gaining experience operating HLV & Orion.Which means you'll have a impressively capable launcher later in the decade, and not much actual exploration missions until -- ta da! -- the 2020's. Assuming, of course, that NASA's budget is never cut.
Which means you'll have a impressively capable launcher later in the decade, and not much actual exploration missions until -- ta da! -- the 2020's. Assuming, of course, that NASA's budget is never cut.
...
What I'm thinking is to write up the latest SD HLV article - as this all became very relevant again - and hopefully use that as a launch pad for some of the background.
What's in the draft?I suspect that the public reaction to the trial balloon will have the result that the bill presented on Thursday will be quite different, but time will tell.
Quite different how? That's exactly the point, you do NOT know what was in the draft.
No idea. I have not seen it. That is why I think it funny that everyone is panning a draft bill that no one has seen.
What's in the draft?I suspect that the public reaction to the trial balloon will have the result that the bill presented on Thursday will be quite different, but time will tell.
Quite different how? That's exactly the point, you do NOT know what was in the draft.
No idea. I have not seen it. That is why I think it funny that everyone is panning a draft bill that no one has seen.
I'm allowed to note that I've had this since last week, but I had to honor a commitment to not release text or note anything. Sorry, but there's no way around such commitments.
However, it's undergone an extensive revision since - last night (now 95 pages - in case anyone thinks I'm making this up ;)). Still honoring non-release of the document, and it is still being worked on.
I'm allowed to note that I've had this since last week, but I had to honor a commitment to not release text or note anything. Sorry, but there's no way around such commitments.
However, it's undergone an extensive revision since - last night (now 95 pages - in case anyone thinks I'm making this up ;)). Still honoring non-release of the document, and it is still being worked on.
No idea. I have not seen it. That is why I think it funny that everyone is panning a draft bill that no one has seen.
Some people have and apparently they don't like it (the draft I mean). We'll see if their concerns are justified soon.
No idea. I have not seen it. That is why I think it funny that everyone is panning a draft bill that no one has seen.
Some people have and apparently they don't like it (the draft I mean). We'll see if their concerns are justified soon.
Ok, so Chris has a copy. He has said nothing and is honoring that. 99.999999% of people posting crap on here about the bill have NOT seen it and are rushing to judgement.
No idea. I have not seen it. That is why I think it funny that everyone is panning a draft bill that no one has seen.
Some people have and apparently they don't like it (the draft I mean). We'll see if their concerns are justified soon.
Ok, so Chris has a copy. He has said nothing and is honoring that. 99.999999% of people posting crap on here about the bill have NOT seen it and are rushing to judgement.
A draft of the bill, obtained by the Orlando Sentinel, was presented to NASA last week by the committee, chaired by Florida Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson. So far the White House has not commented on the bill, but several Florida Space Coast leaders have expressed concern about its impact here.
Frank DiBello, the president of Space Florida, the state's aerospace development body, is not pleased. "We don't want to sacrifice Florida seed corn for an increased R&D role to be politically expedient and save jobs for Utah and other states," DiBello told a Brevard County jobs-development meeting Saturday.
"The Senate bill kills outright the promise of a real R&D opportunity for KSC. It's not good for Florida. I don't know who Bill Nelson is listening to, but it's not his constituents," DiBello said.
"We are afraid the compromise bill compromises Florida's long-term interests," said Dale Ketcham, director of the University of Central Florida's Space Research and Technology Institute.
If NASA's budget is seriously cut, then all bet's are off anyway. At least you might still have an HLV & CEV in the back pocket for when payloads can be afforded.
"they don't need HLV "The SD-HLV could be used for any future ultra heavy DoD payloads too bringing down unit costs for NASA.
Trouble is they don't need HLV and havent done a shuttle dod mission since the 80ies.
actually....................
Actually... what? There is no reason to believe that DoD has any need for an HLV (i.e., something significantly larger than Delta IV Heavy).
Talk to Ross.
Yes, but it has not even been released yet, not to mention voted upon and acted into law. Therefore you cannot intelligently comment on it and are just going off of conjecture and one newspaper report...In a way, it seems like portions of the bill have been "leaked", partly to sell newspapers, but also partly to involve public debate and input. The last ten years or so, have seen too much mystery legislation being enacted without meeting at least my standards of public accountability and input.
If you can't disagree with a bill you've never personally read, then why support a bill you've never personally read? The logic cuts both ways.I don't get this. This makes no grammatical sense.
Yep, that's the latest, 99 pages.
Search "ET-94" for some interesting stuff.
I dont buy directs numbers. Direct was begun as a project to fix Cxp, not economize the space program for the long term.
I have a feeling that those number maybe a bit too optimistic.
These are numbers submitted by people trying to save jobs in the short term not by people looking out for NASAs long term interests.
If you have to design new engines, new fuel tanks, new software, you might as well build a new rocket.
If you keep the SRB, VAB, and crawler in use as they are now you have lost an opportunity to reduce costs.
If we retain two separate workforces NASA and the EELV workforce with taxpayer money it is going to be extra expensive.
If you reduce the flight rate of your HLV to once or twice a year, it will make the shuttle look cheap.
Yep, that's the latest, 99 pages.
Search "ET-94" for some interesting stuff.
Chris-
Interesting....the document also recommends a launch vehicle with a payload capability of 70 to 100 tons.
FLEXIBILITY.—The Space Launch System shall incorporate capabilities for evolutionary growth to launch objects beyond low-Earth orbit and to carry heavier or larger payloads of up to 150 tons.
Yep, that's the latest, 99 pages.It's kind of interesting, but we're still a long ways from enactment.
Search "ET-94" for some interesting stuff.
Yep, that's the latest, 99 pages.
Search "ET-94" for some interesting stuff.
(b) SPACE SHUTTLE CAPABILITY ASSURANCE.—
4 (1) DEVELOPMENT OF FOLLOW-ON SPACE
5 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.—The Administrator
6 shall proceed with the development of follow-on
7 space transportation systems in a manner that en
8 sures that the national capability to restart and fly
9 Space Shuttle missions in addition to the missions
10 authorized by this Act can be initiated if required by
11 the Congress, in an Act enacted after the date of en
12 actment of this Act, or by a Presidential determina
13 tion transmitted to the Congress, before the last
14 Space Shuttle mission authorized by this Act is com
15 pleted.
16 (2) REQUIRED ACTIONS.—In carrying out the
17 requirement in paragraph (1), the Administrator
18 shall authorize refurbishment of the manufactured
19 external tank of the Space Shuttle, designated as
20 ET-94, and take all actions necessary to enable its
21 readiness for use in the Space Launch System devel
22 opment as a critical skills and capability retention
23 effort or for test purposes, while preserving the abil
24 ity to use this tank if needed for an ISS contingency
25 if deemed necessary under paragraph (1).
I don't like this bill (or at least this draft of it). It seems like it is all about pork and ensuring a continuing supply of pork instead of investing in valuable research and development to help us actually develop the technology needed to become spacefaring. IMHO.
I don't like this bill (or at least this draft of it). It seems like it is all about pork and ensuring a continuing supply of pork instead of investing in valuable research and development to help us actually develop the technology needed to become spacefaring. IMHO.Well they do seem to be suggesting inline SDHLV (a Jx4x of some sort). Still looking like a 241 to "save ares pork" sunk into j2x.
Any new kerolox HLV will not be radically cheaper or better than a SD-HLV and a new VASIMR upper stage could fit on to either so what exactly are we waiting for ? Also DoD/NASA collaborations normally end in tears and acrimony so they are better off with separate rockets, engines and pads so they can do their own things in their own time not hindered, dependent or compromised by each other.a) For what value of the gravitational constant do you think VASIMR is an upper stage?
Seize this moment for it may not come round again.
b) Kerolox HLV cheapness depends entirely on what you mean by "Heavy Lift". If 40mT to LEO is enough, it will by definition be incredibly, vastly, radically cheaper. If 75mT to LEO is enough, it is likely to be only much cheaper. If you absolutely need 100mT performance, then it's open for debate.
c) If you think DOD and NASA don't need to share any costs ... eh, too much to write here.
Also, for all those commentators bringing up the costs of DIRECT: remember that the projected development costs for J-130 will probably not get you any farther than Apollo-8 redux (about ~$10 billion, when said and done). You must also budget and wait for JUS -- which is the whole point of the vehicle -- and, meanwhile, budget paying to maintain the entire SDHLV infrastructure while not flying BEO missions, to maintain the entire SDHLV personnel base and skillset.
We can afford to do this.
It's not clear we can afford to have much in the way of actual payloads, technology, or BEO missions to launch on it once it's ready, and you've gone around the moon for the TV cameras.
-Alex
FY2011 White house vs Senate Committee (in millions):
Exploration:
$4263.4 and $3990
broken down (partly):
Exploration Tech:
$652 and $75 (in other words, the Senate Committee version has less than one eighth for exploration tech.)
Heavy Lift and propulsion R&D (White House):
$559 (WH only)
Space Launch System (Senate Committee only):
$1900 (Senate Committee only)
Commercial Cargo:
$312 and $144 (again, less than half)
Commercial Crew:
$500 and $312 (significantly less for commercial crew)
Robotic Precursors:
$125 and $44 (less than half, yet again)
Space Operations:
$4887.8 and $5508.5
Science:
$5005.6 and $5005.6
Aeronautics:
$1151.8 and $804.6
Broken down:
Aeronautics Research:
$579.6 and $579.6
Space Technology:
$572.2 and $225 (in other words, the Senate Committee version has less than half for space tech)
Education:
$145.8 and $145.8
Cross-Agency Support:
$3111.4 and $3111.4
Construction and Environ. Compliance:
$397.3 and $394.3
Inspector General:
$37 and $37
Total budget:
$19000 and $19000
As DavisSTS asked, can a Direct inline launcher be upgraded to lift up to 150 tones? I know they're above the 70 tones threshold, but what's the theoretical limit?
No he is going to explain to you what the DOD needs are. He has the details talk to him instead of posting in ignorance."they don't need HLV "The SD-HLV could be used for any future ultra heavy DoD payloads too bringing down unit costs for NASA.
Trouble is they don't need HLV and havent done a shuttle dod mission since the 80ies.
actually....................
Actually... what? There is no reason to believe that DoD has any need for an HLV (i.e., something significantly larger than Delta IV Heavy).
Talk to Ross.
Why? What's he going to whisper in my ear?
No, I asked if a SD HLV could do it. I never said anything about Direct.
Looks like the draft is out there:
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/NASA%20Rockefeller1.pdf
from this blog post (http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2010/07/nelsons_nasa_compromise_emerges.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+houstonchronicle%2Fsciguy+%28SciGuy%29)
Yep, that's the latest, 99 pages.It's kind of interesting, but we're still a long ways from enactment.
Search "ET-94" for some interesting stuff.
Seems like this draft would retain an option to restart Shuttle operations through FY 2011, but that would require a subsequent act next year. No money for Shuttle beyond the $1.6 billion proposed for it in FY 2011 is authorized.
The external tank reference seems as much about the 'Space Launch System' proposed in the bill draft as it is about Shuttle.
As Eric Berger writes in his blog post, there are a lot of differences between the administration proposal and this draft. If the bill is referred to the Senate floor in this form, at the very least we'll be waiting to read/hear the White House reaction. It does seem like 'the Senate's starting point in negotiations,' as Berger observed.
Right. DoD is going to tell a non-US-citizen details of projects that are almost certainly classified?No he is going to explain to you what the DOD needs are. He has the details talk to him instead of posting in ignorance....
Talk to Ross.
Why? What's he going to whisper in my ear?
As DavisSTS asked, can a Direct inline launcher be upgraded to lift up to 150 tones? I know they're above the 70 tones threshold, but what's the theoretical limit?
Can a SD HLV evolve to lifting that level of mass?
As DavisSTS asked, can a Direct inline launcher be upgraded to lift up to 150 tones? I know they're above the 70 tones threshold, but what's the theoretical limit?http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19322.0
Exploration technology and Space Technology go up by a lot in FY2012. The real hit is taken by commercial crew which is cut to less than half (to around $500 million per year in FY2012 and FY2013).
Exploration technology and Space Technology go up by a lot in FY2012. The real hit is taken by commercial crew which is cut to less than half (to around $500 million per year in FY2012 and FY2013).
FY2012 comparison between senate draft bill and WH proposal:
$437.3M vs. $1.850B WH proposal for mid/high-TRL exploration technology
$100M vs. $506M for robotic precursors
$225M vs. $572M low/mid-TRL space technology
$400M vs. $1.400B commercial crew
FY2012 comparison between senate draft bill and WH proposal:
$437.3M vs. $1.850B WH proposal for mid/high-TRL exploration technology
$100M vs. $506M for robotic precursors
$225M vs. $572M low/mid-TRL space technology
$400M vs. $1.400B commercial crew
FY2012 comparison between senate draft bill and WH proposal:
$437.3M vs. $1.850B WH proposal for mid/high-TRL exploration technology
$100M vs. $506M for robotic precursors
$225M vs. $572M low/mid-TRL space technology
$400M vs. $1.400B commercial crew
again, it takes money from payloads to fund another gov't launch vehicle.
One important note (which had already been mentionned by 51D Mascot in his post of a couple of days ago) is that CRV duty would be provided by commercial crew. This is good news. Strangely enough, NASA cannot choose LM for the CRV unless it gets approval from Congress to do so. See page 41.
FY2012 comparison between senate draft bill and WH proposal:
$437.3M vs. $1.850B WH proposal for mid/high-TRL exploration technology
$100M vs. $506M for robotic precursors
$225M vs. $572M low/mid-TRL space technology
$400M vs. $1.400B commercial crew
again, it takes money from payloads to fund another gov't launch vehicle.
Not terribly happy about this.
FY2012 comparison between senate draft bill and WH proposal:
$437.3M vs. $1.850B WH proposal for mid/high-TRL exploration technology
$100M vs. $506M for robotic precursors
$225M vs. $572M low/mid-TRL space technology
$400M vs. $1.400B commercial crew
again, it takes money from payloads to fund another gov't launch vehicle.
Not terribly happy about this.
One important note (which had already been mentionned by 51D Mascot in his post of a couple of days ago) is that CRV duty would be provided by commercial crew. This is good news. Strangely enough, NASA cannot choose LM for the CRV unless it gets approval from Congress to do so. See page 41.
Doing this actually makes the commercial taxi problem harder. One benefit of the Orion crew rescue compromise was it off loaded long-duration stay time requirements onto a cost-plus contract and off the back of the taxi. It is not cost effective but it was a smart political compromise.
In the end, this authorization bill can be stalled by a single member of the Senate when it gets to the floor, no? If that is so based on Senate rules, then I'd expect the CO delegation to oppose the HLV focus since it doesn't benefit the current Orion contractor.
If (as reported) Jay Rockefeller submitted this bill then I would conclude that he has already lined up support for this bill amongst many other Senators.
I see little political reason for the Senator from West Virginia (hardly a "space state") to go out on a limb that might get sawed off.
One important note (which had already been mentionned by 51D Mascot in his post of a couple of days ago) is that CRV duty would be provided by commercial crew. This is good news. Strangely enough, NASA cannot choose LM for the CRV unless it gets approval from Congress to do so. See page 41.
Doing this actually makes the commercial taxi problem harder. One benefit of the Orion crew rescue compromise was it off loaded long-duration stay time requirements onto a cost-plus contract and off the back of the taxi. It is not cost effective but it was a smart political compromise.
In the end, this authorization bill can be stalled by a single member of the Senate when it gets to the floor, no? If that is so based on Senate rules, then I'd expect the CO delegation to oppose the HLV focus since it doesn't benefit the current Orion contractor.
You:
FY2012 comparison between senate draft bill and WH proposal:
$437.3M vs. $1.850B WH proposal for mid/high-TRL exploration technology
$100M vs. $506M for robotic precursors
$225M vs. $572M low/mid-TRL space technology
$400M vs. $1.400B commercial crew
again, it takes money from payloads to fund another gov't launch vehicle.
Not terribly happy about this.
Having an HLV and Orion ready for December 31, 2016 means cutting other stuff. Hard choices had to be made.
I think that a BEO Orion must also be ready for December 31, 2016. That seems a bit of an aggressive schedule to me.
If (as reported) Jay Rockefeller submitted this bill then I would conclude that he has already lined up support for this bill amongst many other Senators.
I see little political reason for the Senator from West Virginia (hardly a "space state") to go out on a limb that might get sawed off.
I agree with Bill. If Rockefeller is on board, it is likely a done deal as far as the Senate goes.
Wrong, we loose ares 1, a worthless pork rocket, and (potentially) gain a Jupiter style SDHLV. Thats a pretty good traid off for the money, IMO.If (as reported) Jay Rockefeller submitted this bill then I would conclude that he has already lined up support for this bill amongst many other Senators.
I see little political reason for the Senator from West Virginia (hardly a "space state") to go out on a limb that might get sawed off.
I agree with Bill. If Rockefeller is on board, it is likely a done deal as far as the Senate goes.
It's probably a done deal for NASA and Obama too. They achieve one of their main aims, killing Ares I.
You:
Don't have to cut commercial crew,
Don't have to cut CRITICAL r&d (in space propulsion, rad shielding, ect).
To do direct.
You:
FY2012 comparison between senate draft bill and WH proposal:
$437.3M vs. $1.850B WH proposal for mid/high-TRL exploration technology
$100M vs. $506M for robotic precursors
$225M vs. $572M low/mid-TRL space technology
$400M vs. $1.400B commercial crew
again, it takes money from payloads to fund another gov't launch vehicle.
Not terribly happy about this.
Having an HLV and Orion ready for December 31, 2016 means cutting other stuff. Hard choices had to be made.
I think that a BEO Orion must also be ready for December 31, 2016. That seems a bit of an aggressive schedule to me.
Don't have to cut commercial crew,
Don't have to cut CRITICAL r&d (in space propulsion, rad shielding, ect).
To do direct.
Which is exactly why NASA doesn't need their own launcher.You:
Don't have to cut commercial crew,
Don't have to cut CRITICAL r&d (in space propulsion, rad shielding, ect).
To do direct.
So....take the 19 billion pie and divide it up as to what you believe is rationale. Keep in mind that you have to add in all the budget bells and whistles, such as education, etc.
Make it all fit by giving realistic budgets for the scope of the task that will bring capabilities online in the shortest amount of time possible that still fits your criteria above. Lets see what those numbers look like.
Divide up 8.4 billion over 4 years you get: 2.1 billons per year to build HLV. Thats it for SDHLV.You:
Don't have to cut commercial crew,
Don't have to cut CRITICAL r&d (in space propulsion, rad shielding, ect).
To do direct.
So....take the 19 billion pie and divide it up as to what you believe is rationale. Keep in mind that you have to add in all the budget bells and whistles, such as education, etc.
Make it all fit by giving realistic budgets for the scope of the task that will bring capabilities online in the shortest amount of time possible that still fits your criteria above. Lets see what those numbers look like.
Divide up 8.4 billion over 4 years you get: 2.1 billons per year to build HLV. Thats it for SDHLV.You:
Don't have to cut commercial crew,
Don't have to cut CRITICAL r&d (in space propulsion, rad shielding, ect).
To do direct.
So....take the 19 billion pie and divide it up as to what you believe is rationale. Keep in mind that you have to add in all the budget bells and whistles, such as education, etc.
Make it all fit by giving realistic budgets for the scope of the task that will bring capabilities online in the shortest amount of time possible that still fits your criteria above. Lets see what those numbers look like.
Then you have Orion (lets assume 3 billion for 3 years). So for fy2011 we are at 5.1 billion so far.
For the remaining STS flights lets go with 2.3 billion. So now we have 7.4 billion for fy 2011.
that leaves a TON for commercial crew, r&d and many other things
"they don't need HLV "The SD-HLV could be used for any future ultra heavy DoD payloads too bringing down unit costs for NASA.
Trouble is they don't need HLV and havent done a shuttle dod mission since the 80ies.
actually....................
Actually... what? There is no reason to believe that DoD has any need for an HLV (i.e., something significantly larger than Delta IV Heavy).
Talk to Ross.
Why? What's he going to whisper in my ear?
I
1. Earth watching climate or enviromental probes. Not NASA's problem increase NOAA budget for these.
2. Unmanned probes (or robotic precurssors). I would cut these in support of "game changing" r&d. A worthy trade IMO.
3. CXP contracts. Would modify these so that the "termination costs" were not an issue or were far lessend.
4. Would hand total responsibility for managing the HLV program to the contracters (USA, Boeing, LM, ATK). Would ensure that NASA is unable to micromanage as they have in CXP or earlier programs which drove up costs and slipped schedules to the right
5. Would consider the "contractor commercial option" for STS 135.
"they don't need HLV "
actually....................
Actually... what? There is no reason to believe that DoD has any need for an HLV (i.e., something significantly larger than Delta IV Heavy).
Talk to Ross.
Why? What's he going to whisper in my ear?
DoD has a need for several HLV lifts.
That's all.
I have a lot of respect for most of the folks who say "no payloads exist" for the HLV (it's true), but I am getting tired of hearing that. That's a pretty condescending thing to actually say. *Of Course* no payloads exist for a HLV. Nobody in their right mind would build a payload that required a launch vehicle that doesn't exist. I wish people would stop saying that because it's really pretty dumb.
4. Then there is no need for an HLV. The current HLV exists to keep people employed.
The draft bill's proposed Space Launch System starts with $1.9B in FY2011 and then has ~$2.6B/year and should be able to launch Orion by the end of 2016. This is for a shuttle-derived launcher with 70-100mt capability. Both cost and schedule seem considerably higher than the DIRECT team's estimates, which already supposedly had larger than usual margins.
Any ideas on what can account for the discrepancy?
That's a trick question, isn't it? Probably because, they didn't rely on Direct figures...
One important note (which had already been mentionned by 51D Mascot in his post of a couple of days ago) is that CRV duty would be provided by commercial crew. This is good news. Strangely enough, NASA cannot choose LM for the CRV unless it gets approval from Congress to do so. See page 41.
Doing this actually makes the commercial taxi problem harder. One benefit of the Orion crew rescue compromise was it off loaded long-duration stay time requirements onto a cost-plus contract and off the back of the taxi. It is not cost effective but it was a smart political compromise.
In the end, this authorization bill can be stalled by a single member of the Senate when it gets to the floor, no? If that is so based on Senate rules, then I'd expect the CO delegation to oppose the HLV focus since it doesn't benefit the current Orion contractor.
Orion appears to be better off under the Senate proposal. Orion as a "CRV" actually hurt commercial crew because it was totally government-funded competition via a cost-plus contract.
As for "making it harder" on commercial crew, this is not true. If you are going to fly into space, dock to a station, etc you are very much most of the way there already. In addition, Boeing, SpaceX, etc all want to go to Bigelow modules. How do you expect that to work if they don't stay there until that crew is ready to leave?
The draft bill's proposed Space Launch System starts with $1.9B in FY2011 and then has ~$2.6B/year and should be able to launch Orion by the end of 2016. This is for a shuttle-derived launcher with 70-100mt capability. Both cost and schedule seem considerably higher than the DIRECT team's estimates, which already supposedly had larger than usual margins.
Any ideas on what can account for the discrepancy?
That's a trick question, isn't it? Probably because, they didn't rely on Direct figures...
In the end, this Senate bill is unlikely to pass the House, in my view, or if it does, this Administration will find ways to circumvent it.
I have a question. Is the target date of December 31, 2016 for the HLV and the BEO capusule realistic? Augustine didn't think so. What changed since Augustine?
P.S. See sections 302 and 303 of the bill on pages 25-28.
The draft bill's proposed Space Launch System starts with $1.9B in FY2011 and then has ~$2.6B/year and should be able to launch Orion by the end of 2016. This is for a shuttle-derived launcher with 70-100mt capability. Both cost and schedule seem considerably higher than the DIRECT team's estimates, which already supposedly had larger than usual margins.
Any ideas on what can account for the discrepancy?
That's a trick question, isn't it? Probably because, they didn't rely on Direct figures...
4. Then there is no need for an HLV. The current HLV exists to keep people employed.
That is a load of crap. I expected better rationale from you Jim. Everything, including ULA, has the intent to keep people employed.
I have a question. Is the target date of December 31, 2016 for the HLV and the BEO capusule realistic? Augustine didn't think so. What changed since Augustine?
P.S. See sections 302 and 303 of the bill on pages 25-28.
The 2016 date is for flying Orion to LEO on a HLV, not BEO. Significant BEO will likely take longer than in the Augustine Report, as funding for BEO technology R&D is much lower than the $1.5B/year in their projections, and HLV infrastructure costs will have to be supported earlier.
DoD has a need for several HLV lifts.
That's all.
Oh geez, not this again! clongton, you should know better than spreading this junk.
Here is what you posted just a few hours ago in the J130-AV2: Atlas 5 CCB+J 130 core for non-srb-SDHLV thread: (bolded is my emphasis)QuoteI have a lot of respect for most of the folks who say "no payloads exist" for the HLV (it's true), but I am getting tired of hearing that. That's a pretty condescending thing to actually say. *Of Course* no payloads exist for a HLV. Nobody in their right mind would build a payload that required a launch vehicle that doesn't exist. I wish people would stop saying that because it's really pretty dumb.
Soknownow you know why myself (and others) keep posting about "no HLV payloads". Because YOU and others keep posting about payloads!!! This is really starting to sound like Direct FUD from you and Ross.
Stick with the facts, they are compelling enough instead of posting about "shadow" DoD HLV payloads. It won't help your cause.
I have a question. Is the target date of December 31, 2016 for the HLV and the BEO capusule realistic? Augustine didn't think so. What changed since Augustine?
P.S. See sections 302 and 303 of the bill on pages 25-28.
The 2016 date is for flying Orion to LEO on a HLV, not BEO. Significant BEO will likely take longer than in the Augustine Report, as funding for BEO technology R&D is much lower than the $1.5B/year in their projections, and HLV infrastructure costs will have to be supported earlier.
You are right that the HLV and Orion would go to ISS in 2017. But it doesn't seem like there will be a Phase I LEO Orion. If you read the legislation, Orion is required to be a BEO capable from the outset. But I might be reading this too quickly.
Absolutely!4. Then there is no need for an HLV. The current HLV exists to keep people employed.
That is a load of crap. I expected better rationale from you Jim. Everything, including ULA, has the intent to keep people employed.
The bill has only building the HLV. it doesn't describe missions for it.
I believe the ultimate bottom line is this:
1) It is important to have reasonably low cost access to LEO. Commercial companies should take over from NASA with a workable business plan. NASA would be a customer but should not subsidize them in the long run. NASA should only have backup launch capability.
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Space Launch System developed pursuant to subsection (b) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:
(A) The capability of lifting payloads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
(B) The capability to lift the multipurpose crew vehicle.
(C) The capability to serve as a cargo backup for supplying and supporting ISS cargo requirements or crew delivery requirements not otherwise met by available commercial or partner-supplied vehicles.
(2) FLEXIBILITY.—The Space Launch System shall incorporate capabilities for evolutionary growth to launch objects beyond low-Earth orbit and to carry heavier or larger payloads of up to 150 tons.
3) I know I will get some disagreement here but for BEO, NASA truly works best with Apollo style goal oriented missions. Let NASA go to NEO and back to the moon to test procedures for the ultimate goal of landing people on Mars.
SEC. 301. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT BEYOND LOW-EARTH ORBIT.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following find-ings:
(1) The extension of the human presence from low-Earth orbit to other regions of space beyond low-Earth orbit will enable missions to the surface of the moon and missions to deep space destinations such as near-Earth asteroids and Mars.
(2) The regions of cis-lunar space are accessible to other national and commercial launch capabilities, and such access raises a host of national security concerns and economic implications that inter-national human space endeavors can help to address.
(3) The ability to support human missions in regions beyond low-Earth orbit and on the surface
of the moon can also drive developments in emerging areas of space infrastructure and technology.
(4) Developments in space infrastructure andtechnology can stimulate and enable increased space applications, such as in-space servicing, propellant resupply and transfer, and in-situ resource utiliza-tion, and open opportunities for additional users of space, whether national, commercial, or inter-national.
(5) A long-term goal for human exploration of space should be the eventual international explo-ration of Mars.
(6) Future international missions beyond low- Earth orbit should be designed to incorporate capa-bility development and availability, affordability, and international contributions.
(7) Human space flight and future exploration beyond low-Earth orbit should be based around a pay-as-you-go approach. Requirements in new launch and crew systems authorized in this Act should be scaled to the minimum necessary to meet the core national mission capability needed to con-duct cis-lunar missions. These initial missions, along with the development of new technologies and in- space capabilities can form the foundation for mis-sions to other destinations. These initial missions also should provide operational experience prior to the further human expansion into space
You have it backwards on this one.
You need primary capability from NASA. No substitutions please.
Commercial would be backup.
Absolutely!4. Then there is no need for an HLV. The current HLV exists to keep people employed.
That is a load of crap. I expected better rationale from you Jim. Everything, including ULA, has the intent to keep people employed.
The bill has only building the HLV. it doesn't describe missions for it.
Remember how FY2011 was decried because it didn't immediately describe a path/missions. "It's a poor gun that doesn't shoot either direction"!
Why this is a loser is that it doesn't state a rational, a path, missions ... and then the LV/payloads tto accomplish the fact. It's an empty jobs bill and will go nowhere as it is spending for the purpose of filling earmarks, just as past Congresses did to fill out the deficit.
Please remember the deficit. We have to make things that work.
On another matter, yes I can believe DIRECT numbers. What I can't beleive is the arsenal system doing DIRECT on those numbers.
This is the last gasp of the arsenal system. Sorry guys - can't do that anymore.
We need a means too throttle up/down spending - no guaranteed govt overspending anymore. That tyrant is dead.
You have it backwards on this one.
You need primary capability from NASA. No substitutions please.
Commercial would be backup.
Nope, you have it backwards. NASA does not need provide LEO launch services, cargo, crew or otherwise
I believe the ultimate bottom line is this:"Unwilling or unable"? Do you seriously think that Boeing/LockMart/ULA would decline a contract to build a HLV?
...
2) NASA should pave the way in funding heavy lift vehicles for heavy lift missions to LEO and BEO by doing what commercial companies are unwilling or unable to do cost effectively at this time.
Many people say we do not need a heavy lift vehicle but a prime example of the need for a heavy lift mission to LEO was the ISS. It took 10 years and $100 billion to build and could have been done with just a few heavy lift missions. As Augustine said, “Don’t skimp on heavy lift.”Augustine also said that NASA desperately needs to resurrect spending on exploration technology, like fuel depots, advanced in-space propulsion, closed-circuit life support, autonomous rendezvous and docking, and ISRU. The funding to test-fly those missions just got killed here.
You have it backwards on this one.
You need primary capability from NASA. No substitutions please.
Commercial would be backup.
Nope, you have it backwards. NASA does not need provide LEO launch services, cargo, crew or otherwise
Its rather odd that NASA according to you is no longer required to provide those services. Show us the text.
You have it backwards on this one.
You need primary capability from NASA. No substitutions please.
Commercial would be backup.
Nope, you have it backwards. NASA does not need provide LEO launch services, cargo, crew or otherwise
Its rather odd that NASA according to you is no longer required to provide those services. Show us the text.
The text exist. I don't have the link but it was referenced by other posters before. If commercial capability exists, NASA must use it. In other words, if commercial crew providers exist for ISS, they must be used.
You have it backwards on this one.
You need primary capability from NASA. No substitutions please.
Commercial would be backup.
Nope, you have it backwards. NASA does not need provide LEO launch services, cargo, crew or otherwise
Its rather odd that NASA according to you is no longer required to provide those services. Show us the text.
The text exist. I don't have the link but it was referenced by other posters before. If commercial capability exists, NASA must use it. In other words, if commercial crew providers exist for ISS, they must be used.
Let me know about the text because the American taxpayer wouldn't have to pay for it anymore. That would be wonderful.
You're jumping to conclusions again.
There is a difference between building a payload for a non existent launcher and needing to launch something that exceeds current capacity. Notice that I said DoD has a need for several HLV lifts, not payloads. There's a big difference between the 2.
DIRECT does design new fuel tanks -- obviously the ET is changed. Much of that design work may have already been done, and the manufacturing at Michoud may be similar, but you are not proposing to fly the SLWT.If you have to design new engines, new fuel tanks, new software, you might as well build a new rocket.4. DIRECT does *not* design new engines, new fuel tanks or new software.
"Hundreds of millions of dollars" is in the noise on these timelines. Practically irrelevant.QuoteIf you keep the SRB, VAB, and crawler in use as they are now you have lost an opportunity to reduce costs.5. I suppose it's cheaper to demolish perfectly fine hardware and spend hundreds of millions of additional dollars to replace all the working stuff that didn't need to be replaced in the first place. Yea - that's a real good way to save money.
Let me know about the text because the American taxpayer wouldn't have to pay for it anymore. That would be wonderful.
I believe the ultimate bottom line is this:"Unwilling or unable"? Do you seriously think that Boeing/LockMart/ULA would decline a contract to build a HLV?
...
2) NASA should pave the way in funding heavy lift vehicles for heavy lift missions to LEO and BEO by doing what commercial companies are unwilling or unable to do cost effectively at this time.
As for cost effective: if "Heavy lift" is 40mT, it's dirt-cheap. If "Heavy lift" is 75mT, it is likely to be vastly cheaper than SDHLV. Either is "cost effective". If you need 100mT, then SDHLV is an option.QuoteMany people say we do not need a heavy lift vehicle but a prime example of the need for a heavy lift mission to LEO was the ISS. It took 10 years and $100 billion to build and could have been done with just a few heavy lift missions. As Augustine said, “Don’t skimp on heavy lift.”Augustine also said that NASA desperately needs to resurrect spending on exploration technology, like fuel depots, advanced in-space propulsion, closed-circuit life support, autonomous rendezvous and docking, and ISRU. The funding to test-fly those missions just got killed here.
-Alex
Augustine also said that NASA desperately needs to resurrect spending on exploration technology, like fuel depots, advanced in-space propulsion, closed-circuit life support, autonomous rendezvous and docking, and ISRU. The funding to test-fly those missions just got killed here.
Let me know about the text because the American taxpayer wouldn't have to pay for it anymore. That would be wonderful.
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (as amended)
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html
(c) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.
No you *both* have it wrong.
You have it backwards on this one.
You need primary capability from NASA. No substitutions please.
Commercial would be backup.
Nope, you have it backwards. NASA does not need provide LEO launch services, cargo, crew or otherwise
Its rather odd that NASA according to you is no longer required to provide those services. Show us the text.
Let me know about the text because the American taxpayer wouldn't have to pay for it anymore. That would be wonderful.
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (as amended)
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html
Yes, I was about to post that. I thinks it's section 102(c) (on page 4 of the PDF):Quote(c) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.1
http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf
Let me know about the text because the American taxpayer wouldn't have to pay for it anymore. That would be wonderful.
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (as amended)
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html
Yes, I was about to post that. I thinks it's section 102(c) (on page 4 of the PDF):Quote(c) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.1
http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf
That's great! We can encourage them with a Hallmark card.
Augustine also said that NASA desperately needs to resurrect spending on exploration technology, like fuel depots, advanced in-space propulsion, closed-circuit life support, autonomous rendezvous and docking, and ISRU. The funding to test-fly those missions just got killed here.
Please. Human spaceflight is one of the most intensely studied endeavors in human history.
It's all been proposed, and subscale tests or full up mockups have been built before; like for example, the LEV/SEV that's been driving around the desert as part of D-RATS for the last couple years; the new suit designs put forth by ILC, the various electric thrusters that have been developed by NASA and other companies; etc.
At some point, you need to say: "Okay, we need to finalize the designs and start building them, the time for test test propose, test is over."
Let me know about the text because the American taxpayer wouldn't have to pay for it anymore. That would be wonderful.
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (as amended)
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html
Yes, I was about to post that. I thinks it's section 102(c) (on page 4 of the PDF):Quote(c) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.1
http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf
That's great! We can encourage them with a Hallmark card.
Let me know about the text because the American taxpayer wouldn't have to pay for it anymore. That would be wonderful.
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (as amended)
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html
Yes, I was about to post that. I thinks it's section 102(c) (on page 4 of the PDF):Quote(c) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.1
http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf
That's great! We can encourage them with a Hallmark card.
No one is going to build F1A.
Let me know about the text because the American taxpayer wouldn't have to pay for it anymore. That would be wonderful.
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (as amended)
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html
Yes, I was about to post that. I thinks it's section 102(c) (on page 4 of the PDF):Quote(c) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.1
http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf
That's great! We can encourage them with a Hallmark card.
No one is going to build F1A.
Now you are just getting into semantics. Unless you can tell me what an HLV would 'lift' that would not be considered a 'payload'?
And thanks for the spelling correction. It is unfortunately something that I frequently need help with. :)
Any chance we could take the "attempt to educate JDCampbell about NASA fundamentals" sub-thread somewhere else? It's a valiant effort, but has virtually nothing to do with the Senate bill.Mythbusters thread.
Who here thinks the senate bill HLV number is so high because the LV is sidemount?
Any chance we could take the "attempt to educate JDCampbell about NASA fundamentals" sub-thread somewhere else? It's a valiant effort, but has virtually nothing to do with the Senate bill.Mythbusters thread.
Back on topic:
Who here thinks the senate bill HLV number is so high because the LV is sidemount?
Any chance we could take the "attempt to educate JDCampbell about NASA fundamentals" sub-thread somewhere else? It's a valiant effort, but has virtually nothing to do with the Senate bill.
Any chance we could take the "attempt to educate JDCampbell about NASA fundamentals" sub-thread somewhere else? It's a valiant effort, but has virtually nothing to do with the Senate bill.Mythbusters thread.
Back on topic:
Who here thinks the senate bill HLV number is so high because the LV is sidemount?
Are we all having fun? :)Oh yes.
Kinda relevant is my article that will go on in a few hours "Lunar/BEO - SD HLV, Commercial and International Architecture Outlined".
I'll start a seperate thread when it's on, but will keep this one going, as this thread is specific to the bill.
Any chance we could take the "attempt to educate JDCampbell about NASA fundamentals" sub-thread somewhere else? It's a valiant effort, but has virtually nothing to do with the Senate bill.
Don't be shy. So far NASA as of late is lacking fundamentals. If you want to talk, talk to me; no hide and seek games.
Increasing the budget to 20 billion per year would be nice, but I don't see it happening.
SEC. 103. FISCAL YEAR 2013.
There are authorized to be appropriated to NASA for fiscal year 2013, $19,960,000,000, as follows:
The mission for the HLV is ISS and LEO in the short term. That's easy to figure out. Some BEO testing will occur at the ISS. But I don't expect actual BEO to occur prior to 2028 (or when ever ISS is deorbited).Missing my point. Needs dictate requirements, requirements dictate plans/path/vehicles.
Any chance we could take the "attempt to educate JDCampbell about NASA fundamentals" sub-thread somewhere else? It's a valiant effort, but has virtually nothing to do with the Senate bill.
Don't be shy. So far NASA as of late is lacking fundamentals. If you want to talk, talk to me; no hide and seek games.
Actually, the question you raised is on point because it's not clear in this bill, what the HLV would be doing in 2017. If commercial crew is available, NASA must use it to ferry crew. So the HLV will not be used very often between 2017 and 2025 (or when ever we start BEO). NASA could still send the HLV to the ISS for missions that require an HLV. But fairly large payloads for the HLV must be found.
The mission for the HLV is ISS and LEO in the short term. That's easy to figure out. Some BEO testing will occur at the ISS. But I don't expect actual BEO to occur prior to 2028 (or when ever ISS is deorbited).Missing my point. Needs dictate requirements, requirements dictate plans/path/vehicles.
People got upset because the moon was canceled - they wanted a goal. He said Mars. Then they wanted a detailed path with demonstrators. He gave them demonstrators.
Not the plan I'd want to hear with a timeline.
But if you're not going to be a jobs program, you'd better have a detailed plan/timeline/missions. Then I'll beleive it more.
No one's supplying details because they don't want them to be tested against. This is bad.
Testing Shuttle back in the 70's against the way that the Soviet's did stations would have revealed Shuttle's expensive flaws early on.
We've got to be more critical of our decisions.
The realistic answer is that we are building an HLV that will be going to the ISS and LEO for the foreseable future.
Increasing the budget to 20 billion per year would be nice, but I don't see it happening.Quote from: NASA Rockefeller1.pdf, page 15SEC. 103. FISCAL YEAR 2013.
There are authorized to be appropriated to NASA for fiscal year 2013, $19,960,000,000, as follows:
Also, the original FY2011 proposal tops 20 billion in 2014 and hits 20.9 billion in 2015.
...OK. Then we buy or get provided Atlas V and CST-100. End of story.
I didn't missed your point and I don't actually disagree with you. I am just telling you what the realistic answer to your question is. The realistic answer is that we are building an HLV that will be going to the ISS and LEO for the foreseable future.
The realistic answer is that we are building an HLV that will be going to the ISS and LEO for the foreseable future.
Not much point in commercial cargo and possibly crew also then.
Again with this "R&D is useless" rhetoric.
What about research of reducing cryogenic boil off, closed loop life support, rad shielding, ISRU etc.? Are these at the level where someone can say "tests are over let's build it"?
But this is the kicker...having a Mr. Oxygen unit does you no good if there's no way to put a man on the moon!
14 (1) The extension of the human presence from
15 low-Earth orbit to other regions of space beyond
16 low-Earth orbit will enable missions to the surface of
17 the moon and missions to deep space destinations
18 such as near-Earth asteroids and Mars.
Cryo boil off and life support are not critically important items -- you can always design excess capacity into the cryogenic tanks to make up for any boil off.
As for radiation shielding. I hate to break it to you; but if there was some near-term way to cut the mass or bulk of radiation shielding down; NASA would not be the major R&D driver; but the U.S. Navy, who would be aggressively pursuing it for their Nuclear Propulsion Program; as a way of putting more fuel and bombs onto CVNs (the reactor shielding for a naval reactor is very large and heavy -- it's why our smallest nuclear warships tended to mass over 7,800~ tons).
Ryan,
Thanks for your comments. But in your opinion what should the HLV be doing from 2017 until you start BEO in the 2020s?
Of course, no money to build those payloads. That money was just cut out here.Ryan,
Thanks for your comments. But in your opinion what should the HLV be doing from 2017 until you start BEO in the 2020s?
Two options:
1.) SKYLAB sized-components for the ISS to orbit. A few launches would massively increase the habitable volume of ISS.
2.) Propellant Depot test -- even if you draw down some of the propellant in tests involving a modified Jules Verne unmanned spacecraft, there would still be enough left to be useful for a couple more years.
Ryan,
Thanks for your comments. But in your opinion what should the HLV be doing from 2017 until you start BEO in the 2020s?
Two options:
1.) SKYLAB sized-components for the ISS to orbit. A few launches would massively increase the habitable volume of ISS.
2.) Propellant Depot test -- even if you draw down some of the propellant in tests involving a modified Jules Verne unmanned spacecraft (e.g. replace the cargo compartment with an empty propellant tank to see if you can dock and then draw propellant from the depot in orbit), there would still be enough left to be useful for a couple more years.
3.) Lifting some sort of really huge space telescope to replace Hubble. But this is very unlikely; since planning for a super hubble would have to start now for it to be ready by 2017; and there's no inkling of this; since it seems to be that JWST is the astronomy project for now.
Of course, no money to build those payloads. That money was just cut out here.
I think you left out colonizing Mars by 2025.
HLV would help with that too. How many wishes does the HLV grant? I need to plan my mission accordingly.
So why not put a cheap bare-bones pressurized module in?
Don't know why it's high but the bill does not say anything to indicate sidemount or inline. The only "indication", if there is any at all, is the ability to grow to lift 150mT. Sidemount couldn't do that. The eccentric loads would be extreme to say the least.
REQUIRED ACTIONS.—In carrying out the requirement in paragraph (1), the Administrator shall authorize refurbishment of the manufactured external tank of the Space Shuttle, designated as ET-94, and take all actions necessary to enable its readiness for use in the Space Launch System development as a critical skills and capability retention effort or for test purposes, while preserving the ability to use this tank if needed for an ISS contingency if deemed necessary under paragraph (1).(Para 1 is "ensures (the) capability to restart and fly Space Shuttle).
We have the "go do it crowd" - they task up with whatever it takes, ignore inconvenient things like radiation/propulsion/..., and build monsters out of current technology that may or may not work. This pleases the "jobs programs" because it doesn't have to get there/work ... just needs to supply jobs.
It's probably a done deal for NASA and Obama too. They achieve one of their main aims, killing Ares I.
Because there is no need for it or place for it.
In the end, this Senate bill is unlikely to pass the House, in my view, or if it does, this Administration will find ways to circumvent it.
If it is true that a single senator can stop a standalone authorisation bill, is there any reason to assume this bill will even pass the Senate? Surely Obama can find a single senator to oppose this for him?
Where does it say in this draft, "killing Ares I" ? it is not explicit, not implicit either.
"Space Launch System" not "launcher".
(a) IN GENERAL.—In developing the Space Launch
System pursuant to section 302 and the multi-purpose
crew vehicle pursuant to section 303, the Administrator
shall, to the extent practicable, utilize existing contracts,
investments, workforce, industrial base, and capabilities
from the Space Shuttle and former Orion and Ares 1
projects, including Space Shuttle-derived components and
Ares 1 components that use existing United States propul-
sion systems, including liquid fuel engines, external tank
or tank-related capability, and solid rocket motor engines,
and associated testing facilities, either in being or under
construction as of the date of enactment of this Act.
Where does it say in this draft, "killing Ares I" ? it is not explicit, not implicit either.
"Space Launch System" not "launcher".
Page 29, Section 304 (a):Quote(a) IN GENERAL.—In developing the Space Launch
System pursuant to section 302 and the multi-purpose
crew vehicle pursuant to section 303, the Administrator
shall, to the extent practicable, utilize existing contracts,
investments, workforce, industrial base, and capabilities
from the Space Shuttle and former Orion and Ares 1
projects, including Space Shuttle-derived components and
Ares 1 components that use existing United States propul-
sion systems, including liquid fuel engines, external tank
or tank-related capability, and solid rocket motor engines,
and associated testing facilities, either in being or under
construction as of the date of enactment of this Act.
Seems pretty explicit to me that Ares 1 is a "former" project.
Again with this "R&D is useless" rhetoric.
Placing super emphasis on R&D is a sure way to kill a program and ensure that nothing ever gets built in the end. Spiral development is a much better way of building in new capabilities than waiting for some eternally on the horizon technology.QuoteWhat about research of reducing cryogenic boil off, closed loop life support, rad shielding, ISRU etc.? Are these at the level where someone can say "tests are over let's build it"?
Cryo boil off and life support are not critically important items -- you can always design excess capacity into the cryogenic tanks to make up for any boil off.
An astronaut consumes at worst a couple pounds of life support consumables (oxygen, water, food, and LiOH) a day. That's about 16 pounds a day for a four man crew (rough SWAG). Thirty more days' stay time for that crew is about 500 pounds. You wouldn't be able to fit that in the early block missions, but the later block missions with slightly more powerful launch vehicles would accomodate it.
And we're not just limited to shoving more consumables onto the spacecraft itself. Apollo 12 showed that pinpoint landings on the moon were possible; so we can land a supply lander on a much smaller launch vehicle to extend exploration of the moon by the crew for a month or two. This was studied I believe as part of Apollo Applications.
But yes, even a simple Mk 1 Mod 0 Mr. Oxygen ISRU unit that you shovel lunar regolith into to get O2 out would immensely prolong stay times.
But this is the kicker...having a Mr. Oxygen unit does you no good if there's no way to put a man on the moon!
As for radiation shielding. I hate to break it to you; but if there was some near-term way to cut the mass or bulk of radiation shielding down; NASA would not be the major R&D driver; but the U.S. Navy, who would be aggressively pursuing it for their Nuclear Propulsion Program; as a way of putting more fuel and bombs onto CVNs (the reactor shielding for a naval reactor is very large and heavy -- it's why our smallest nuclear warships tended to mass over 7,800~ tons).
So yes; I can understand why the proposed Congressional platform places less emphasis on these future term technologies; in favor of near term technologies; like HLVs -- because these future term technologies do nothing currently, and can be deferred safely until there is a launch infrastructure in place to take them to where they can provide the most bang for the buck.
Has anyone seen any "close the gap" rhetoric or is that yesterday's talking point?
Cite me the study. Where's the animal testing that confirms the study. You're pulling this out of your a$$.
You confuse experimental vehicles and "learning curve" with formal practices.
However, I do wonder what this 6xSSME + stretched tank + 5-seg inline/sidemount hybrid is capable of. Ares V Classic was "only" 5xSSME, and was nearly in the 150mT-to-LEO class, if you include the mass of the u/s (IMLEO):-
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sd-hlv-assessment-highlights-post-shuttle-solution/
(http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/A8.jpg)
I really don't think we can tell anything from the details in this document.
cheers, Martin
Ah here is the problem. Carrying all your supplies like that without recycling cost both mass and volume within the craft. Even in the case of the shuttle One of the upgrades to the shuttle’s life support system was installing an regenerative co2 scrubber to extend on orbit life. Without that scrubber the number of lioh cartages needed for the mission would take up space for other supplies.
It comes out to 925 pounds just for that 30 day trip and the longer the trip, the more and more mass of water you are going to need.
Not an impossibility, but a smarter move would be to have a smaller tank and a recycling system.
Ryan,2.) Propellant Depot test -- even if you draw down some of the propellant in tests involving a modified Jules Verne unmanned spacecraft (e.g. replace the cargo compartment with an empty propellant tank to see if you can dock and then draw propellant from the depot in orbit), there would still be enough left to be useful for a couple more years
Thanks for your comments. But in your opinion what should the HLV be doing from 2017 until you start BEO in the 2020s?
What was the distribution of the energies? Were the events proton's, stripped helium nucleus, gamma's, neutrons? Secondary or primary.
Link to Table (http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/Resize-jpg/ts2c3-2.jpg)
Apollo 8 recived an average dose of 0.16 rads; Apollo 11 only 0.18 rads; Apollo 14 the high of 1.14 rads; and Apollo 17, the longest mission on the moon only 0.55 rads.
In terms people can understand; Apollo 14 got 2.85 rems over a nine day mission, or 0.31 rems a day.
Humans can take up to 25 rems with no noticeable effect on them; so a future lunar exploration mission could spend 80 days in transit to/from earth and on the moon with no ill effects.
Of course, 14 was the outlier; and the other missions were much lower.
It's also worth noting that the LEM for Apollo was very much built to thin margins -- you've all heard the famous quote of dropping a screwdriver right through the hull -- but one line in Gene Cernan's book (1999) has both him and Schmitt noticing as the LEM repressurizes after the first EVA, the hull literally flexing outwards due to the difference in pressure.Actually, certain plastics make for very good solar wind radiation shielding (protons). Metal actually intensifies radiation trapped in the Van Allen's.
When we go back, we will not be operating on such thin margins in order to meet Kennedy's immortal quote; and things will be built much heavier; and more mass = more radiation protection.
None of that will help you with a GRB. Or a CME with a high neutron flux.
As for the LEV/SEV radiation hardness capability:
5 MB Factsheet on SEV (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/464826main_SEV_Concept_FactSheet.pdf)
Astronaut Protection
The greatest risk to space explorers is from unanticipated solar particle events. With a heavily shielded cabin, the SEV doubles as a storm shelter. The rapidly accessible, pressurized, radiation-hard safe haven can sustain and protect exploring crew members for up to 72 hours against solar particle events, acute suit malfunctions and other medical emergencies. The radiation shielding in the SEV cabin provides protection that the Apollo crew did not have on their unpressurized rover – or even on their lander.
...
Ice-shielded Lock / Fusible Heat Sink:
Lock surrounded by 2.5 cm of frozen water provides radiation protection. Same ice is used as a fusible heat sink, rejecting heat energy by melting ice instead of evaporating water to vacuum.
The X-15 flew 199 flights - each of them experimental.QuoteYou confuse experimental vehicles and "learning curve" with formal practices.
I wouldn't call thirteen flights of the Saturn V, of which twelve were pretty much successful with no major problems; followed by 131 launches of the space shuttle with only one failure -- 'experimental'.
We have also built up a large database of conditions in space thanks to the increasing amounts of robotic exploration craft we have been sending out since the 1970s; so we know pretty much what is waiting for us in the solar system and can design for/against it. This is in marked contrast to what we started out with Mercury -- Can a man survive in space without his heart exploding?
Because there is no need for it or place for it.
I dunno; adding 10,000 ft3 of useable pressurized space to ISS' 35,000 ft3 in one shot would be really useful for habitability -- plus you can now carry bigger experiments than before. And with that 70 MT mass, you could even have mass to have a decently sized storm cellar with more radiation protection in as well.
So define for me the cutoff point based on a formalism.
The point I was trying to make earlier is this -- at some point, we have to set a cutoff point for new technologies -- we can't always be perpetually waiting for the latest new thing that promises to reduce x mass by y percent -- otherwise we'll never get anywhere; so it's acceptable to defer funding for advanced concepts temporarily in favor of funding a system that will actually be flown.
The bill has only building the HLV. it doesn't describe missions for it.
Most of the money is taken out of robotic precursors, tech development, and commercial crew/cargo and is put into the Space Launch Vehicle. Rocket fetishism at its finest.
Tell me about Gemini's science product?Most of the money is taken out of robotic precursors, tech development, and commercial crew/cargo and is put into the Space Launch Vehicle. Rocket fetishism at its finest.
Common sense at its finest.
All of the Flagship Technology Demonstrators (FTDs) were, frankly, engineering for the sake of engineering. They didn't actually do anything beyond prove that they could exist, and they cost a massive amount of money to do just that.
I am a planetary scientist, and am all for more robotic missions. But the FTDs returned no science, while simultaneously cutting into missions that could have returned science. The far better way to this is what NASA's been doing for decades now: incrementally testing technology as part of actual exploration. Anything else is wasting money for little to show...
1.I dunno; adding 10,000 ft3 of useable pressurized space to ISS' 35,000 ft3 in one shot would be really useful for habitability --
2plus you can now carry bigger experiments than before.
as well.
Then have them do a study ... define missions & requirements ... pass to NASA ... have them bid out RFP/RFQ ... vendors respond with LV etc.The bill has only building the HLV. it doesn't describe missions for it.
If you actually read the bill, you'll note that they direct the National Academies to conduct a proper study to determine those missions. In other words, instead of dictating a target, they provide the money for the expensive bit (SLS) and then ask the community what to do with it.
This is entirely appropriate and is _exactly_ how the Planetary Science, Astrophysics, Helioscience, and Earth Science programs have been run for decades. It's about time the HSF program catches up...
Ah here is the problem. Carrying all your supplies like that without recycling cost both mass and volume within the craft. Even in the case of the shuttle One of the upgrades to the shuttle’s life support system was installing an regenerative co2 scrubber to extend on orbit life. Without that scrubber the number of lioh cartages needed for the mission would take up space for other supplies.
I also understand from a random perusal of NTRS that some sort of low level regenerative life support system was being considered for the Orion CSM to enable long duration missions of 180~ days. (by low level, I mean that it recycled a low percentage of the wastes; rather than 99% like a near closed system); along with early ISRU technologies for lunar bases arising out of Constellation.QuoteIt comes out to 925 pounds just for that 30 day trip and the longer the trip, the more and more mass of water you are going to need.
Not an impossibility, but a smarter move would be to have a smaller tank and a recycling system.
You could also double-hat the water storage tanks to act as radiation shielding for a storm cellar -- since by the time the water was getting low, you would be leaving the moon anyway.
But yes; you make your point well; if we want to stay more than just a month; recycling/regenerative/ISRU life support does help in reducing overall mass.
The point I was trying to make earlier is this -- at some point, we have to set a cutoff point for new technologies -- we can't always be perpetually waiting for the latest new thing that promises to reduce x mass by y percent -- otherwise we'll never get anywhere; so it's acceptable to defer funding for advanced concepts temporarily in favor of funding a system that will actually be flown.
Tell me about Gemini's science product?
Or Ares I-X?
How do you improve logistical systems ... and generate a science product??
Ah here is the problem. Carrying all your supplies like that without recycling cost both mass and volume within the craft. Even in the case of the shuttle One of the upgrades to the shuttle’s life support system was installing an regenerative co2 scrubber to extend on orbit life. Without that scrubber the number of lioh cartages needed for the mission would take up space for other supplies.
I also understand from a random perusal of NTRS that some sort of low level regenerative life support system was being considered for the Orion CSM to enable long duration missions of 180~ days. (by low level, I mean that it recycled a low percentage of the wastes; rather than 99% like a near closed system); along with early ISRU technologies for lunar bases arising out of Constellation.QuoteIt comes out to 925 pounds just for that 30 day trip and the longer the trip, the more and more mass of water you are going to need.
Not an impossibility, but a smarter move would be to have a smaller tank and a recycling system.
You could also double-hat the water storage tanks to act as radiation shielding for a storm cellar -- since by the time the water was getting low, you would be leaving the moon anyway.
But yes; you make your point well; if we want to stay more than just a month; recycling/regenerative/ISRU life support does help in reducing overall mass.
The point I was trying to make earlier is this -- at some point, we have to set a cutoff point for new technologies -- we can't always be perpetually waiting for the latest new thing that promises to reduce x mass by y percent -- otherwise we'll never get anywhere; so it's acceptable to defer funding for advanced concepts temporarily in favor of funding a system that will actually be flown.
IF we get an HLV we will have a pretty little rocket that is all dressed up, with nowhere to go. No long term mission will be done because all the money for r/d is tied up running it(sort of like it is currently with the shuttle). Short terms mission will be short expensive and unable to justify their costs. Like Apollo they will be canceled for something more affordable.
Tell me about Gemini's science product?
Gemini should never have existed. It only happened because the people running the MSC wanted a Mercury follow-on, but didn't like von Braun. A couple extra Mercury flights plus a couple more LEO Apollo flights could have accomplished everything Gemini did, but for much less...
I am an unabashed HLV guy and I make no bones about it. But even I will be among the first to say that a launch vehicle being built just for the sake of building it is not smart. There needs to be a mission for it or it shouldn't be built. The object is to get BEO and explore.
When it comes to the (please forgive my use of the forbiden word) Ares I, this draft of the bill, and likely the final version will have the wording seen here. What they are doing is handing the vehicle decision over to NASA while placing the gates of saying NASA "shall" use what Ares I hardware NASA believes is needed to advance the HLV. This does not eliminate Nelson's idea of later Ares I-X styled tests, nor does it order such. It just says NASA must use as much of the Ares I materials as NASA thinks are needed. If you read "Kill" into that wording it is wishful thinking by Ares I haters, and in contrast, if you read "They have to fly more Ares I-Xs" into that wording it is wishful thinking by Ares I huggers. Frankly- we should read nothing into it at this point and just watch and see what NASA reads into it.1. Ares 1 never should have existed, thats the bottom line
Again- sorry for using the words "Ares I" four times and only using the word "kill" once... I guess I owe some of you 3 "Kills" or "Deads" I'll catch up to ya' later ;)
4. Then there is no need for an HLV. The current HLV exists to keep people employed.
That is a load of crap. I expected better rationale from you Jim. Everything, including ULA, has the intent to keep people employed.
The bill has only building the HLV. it doesn't describe missions for it.
Ah here is the problem. Carrying all your supplies like that without recycling cost both mass and volume within the craft. Even in the case of the shuttle One of the upgrades to the shuttle’s life support system was installing an regenerative co2 scrubber to extend on orbit life. Without that scrubber the number of lioh cartages needed for the mission would take up space for other supplies.
I also understand from a random perusal of NTRS that some sort of low level regenerative life support system was being considered for the Orion CSM to enable long duration missions of 180~ days. (by low level, I mean that it recycled a low percentage of the wastes; rather than 99% like a near closed system); along with early ISRU technologies for lunar bases arising out of Constellation.QuoteIt comes out to 925 pounds just for that 30 day trip and the longer the trip, the more and more mass of water you are going to need.
Not an impossibility, but a smarter move would be to have a smaller tank and a recycling system.
You could also double-hat the water storage tanks to act as radiation shielding for a storm cellar -- since by the time the water was getting low, you would be leaving the moon anyway.
But yes; you make your point well; if we want to stay more than just a month; recycling/regenerative/ISRU life support does help in reducing overall mass.
The point I was trying to make earlier is this -- at some point, we have to set a cutoff point for new technologies -- we can't always be perpetually waiting for the latest new thing that promises to reduce x mass by y percent -- otherwise we'll never get anywhere; so it's acceptable to defer funding for advanced concepts temporarily in favor of funding a system that will actually be flown.
What makes you think the HLV will be flown? If the missions are too expensive they will not be done period. Even the shuttle failed in some regard. No funding was made available to build a lunar transfer shuttle or other BEO stuff during the shuttle’s lifetime. Why are we still talking about cryogenic propellant depots as a r/d project in the 21st century?
The idea of FY2011 is do some r/d for 5 years then come up with more concrete plans. Not do r/d until we have achieved a certain level of technology. The idea was to pick off low hanging fruit not keep doing things the same old fashioned way. Some of the technonologies could be great and some could be horse beep. Without r/d you won’t know which is which. And these technologies influence the kind of HLV you may need for the mission.
We know HLV plus disposable capsule is both unaffordable and gives too few missions per buck to be justifiable. If one moon shoot can buy 3-4 LEO trips then it becomes hard to justify doing a few expensive BEO trips and nothing else.
Here is the thing we don’t need HLV. What we need are spacecraft and the more money that is spent towards that end the better.
IMHO this bill would be like Apollo deciding that no new technology or approaches were needed and that directly landing on the moon rather than LOR is the best approach. It almost certainly would not have made its goals.
The goals of fy2011 is move LEO to commercial that way NASA can focus on BEO flight. To make BEO flight cheaper and more capable. Imagine if resupply of a BEO mission did not need an HLV flight? How much more radiation shielding can your mass budget allow when your hull is 2tons worth of material vs. 10 tons worth of aluminum. Also by the way polyethylene is better than water at radiation shielding and using water for radiation shielding makes it not potable.
IF we get an HLV we will have a pretty little rocket that is all dressed up, with nowhere to go. No long term mission will be done because all the money for r/d is tied up running it(sort of like it is currently with the shuttle). Short terms mission will be short expensive and unable to justify their costs. Like Apollo they will be canceled for something more affordable.
Like it, but is there time to get this through the relevant channels before we run out of time and end up with a CR?
Would a CR kill any of this shuttle related protection?
One important note (which had already been mentionned by 51D Mascot in his post of a couple of days ago) is that CRV duty would be provided by commercial crew. This is good news. Strangely enough, NASA cannot choose LM for the CRV unless it gets approval from Congress to do so. See page 41.
Doing this actually makes the commercial taxi problem harder. One benefit of the Orion crew rescue compromise was it off loaded long-duration stay time requirements onto a cost-plus contract and off the back of the taxi. It is not cost effective but it was a smart political compromise.
In the end, this authorization bill can be stalled by a single member of the Senate when it gets to the floor, no? If that is so based on Senate rules, then I'd expect the CO delegation to oppose the HLV focus since it doesn't benefit the current Orion contractor.
Orion appears to be better off under the Senate proposal. Orion as a "CRV" actually hurt commercial crew because it was totally government-funded competition via a cost-plus contract.
As for "making it harder" on commercial crew, this is not true. If you are going to fly into space, dock to a station, etc you are very much most of the way there already. In addition, Boeing, SpaceX, etc all want to go to Bigelow modules. How do you expect that to work if they don't stay there until that crew is ready to leave?
With respect, I view things differently based on high level discussions with several key players at NASA and industry.
Orion as a CRV doesn't hurt commercial crew, since commercial crew providers had already weighed in that it was an acceptable compromise. This was obvious to those of us at the NSS meeting in early April when the idea was first mooted.
The stay time at a Bigelow facility is much shorter (one month vs. six months or more for ISS). Further, the requirements for ISS lifeboat duty are likely going to be different for a commercial station, since the mode of operation of the facilities differ.
In the end, this Senate bill is unlikely to pass the House, in my view, or if it does, this Administration will find ways to circumvent it. Consider the game being played regarding the offshore drilling moratorium. I am not optimistic that we will see anything but further stagnation as the result of the games being played in the Senate.
The reason we prove capabilities before using them is to independently prove the capability. Why one might do this near the earth first is to use earth based resources to evaluate - rather than have an "mystery" around mars.How do you improve logistical systems ... and generate a science product??
Depends on what you mean by logistics systems. If, say, you want a SEP demonstrator, instead of just flying around Earth orbit with it (like the FTD was supposed), attach a science payload and fly it to somewhere interesting. Note that this is being done right now by the Dawn spacecraft, which is not only a technology demonstrator (it just broke the record for most in-space delta v @ 4.4 km/s), but also planned to return very useful science from the largest two asteroids.
Likewise, instead of demoing aerocapture on Earth (again, as the FTD would have done), demo it on Mars with a low-cost science orbiter. Use a prop-transfer demo to send an orbiter or lander to the Moon. And so on; this doesn't take a whole lot of creativity...
4 SEC. 404. REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
5 CARGO RETURN CAPABILITY.
6 Not later than 120 days after the date of the enact
7 ment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the
8 appropriate committees of Congress a report on potential
9 alternative commercially-developed means for the capa
10 bility for a soft-landing return on land for return from
11 the ISS of—
12 (1) research samples or other derivative mate
13 rials; and
14 (2) small to mid-sized (up to 1,000 kilograms)
15 equipment for return and analysis, or for refurbish
16 ment and redelivery, to the ISS.
One important note (which had already been mentionned by 51D Mascot in his post of a couple of days ago) is that CRV duty would be provided by commercial crew. This is good news. Strangely enough, NASA cannot choose LM for the CRV unless it gets approval from Congress to do so. See page 41.
Doing this actually makes the commercial taxi problem harder. One benefit of the Orion crew rescue compromise was it off loaded long-duration stay time requirements onto a cost-plus contract and off the back of the taxi. It is not cost effective but it was a smart political compromise.
In the end, this authorization bill can be stalled by a single member of the Senate when it gets to the floor, no? If that is so based on Senate rules, then I'd expect the CO delegation to oppose the HLV focus since it doesn't benefit the current Orion contractor.
Orion appears to be better off under the Senate proposal. Orion as a "CRV" actually hurt commercial crew because it was totally government-funded competition via a cost-plus contract.
As for "making it harder" on commercial crew, this is not true. If you are going to fly into space, dock to a station, etc you are very much most of the way there already. In addition, Boeing, SpaceX, etc all want to go to Bigelow modules. How do you expect that to work if they don't stay there until that crew is ready to leave?
With respect, I view things differently based on high level discussions with several key players at NASA and industry.
Orion as a CRV doesn't hurt commercial crew, since commercial crew providers had already weighed in that it was an acceptable compromise. This was obvious to those of us at the NSS meeting in early April when the idea was first mooted.
The stay time at a Bigelow facility is much shorter (one month vs. six months or more for ISS). Further, the requirements for ISS lifeboat duty are likely going to be different for a commercial station, since the mode of operation of the facilities differ.
In the end, this Senate bill is unlikely to pass the House, in my view, or if it does, this Administration will find ways to circumvent it. Consider the game being played regarding the offshore drilling moratorium. I am not optimistic that we will see anything but further stagnation as the result of the games being played in the Senate.
As to your first point, all I will say is read this:
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100521-orion-lifeboat-making-waves.html
On your second point, why is the one month versus 6 months significant? I agree the mode of operation will probably be different, yet when it comes to crew escape, the absolute basic requirement is to get out. That will be no different and any vehicle that can remain attached to the station, whatever station, to bring the crew home at normal end of mission can also serve as a CRV.
On your third point, I'd like to know what data you have to support any of that.
One important note (which had already been mentionned by 51D Mascot in his post of a couple of days ago) is that CRV duty would be provided by commercial crew. This is good news. Strangely enough, NASA cannot choose LM for the CRV unless it gets approval from Congress to do so. See page 41.
Doing this actually makes the commercial taxi problem harder. One benefit of the Orion crew rescue compromise was it off loaded long-duration stay time requirements onto a cost-plus contract and off the back of the taxi. It is not cost effective but it was a smart political compromise.
In the end, this authorization bill can be stalled by a single member of the Senate when it gets to the floor, no? If that is so based on Senate rules, then I'd expect the CO delegation to oppose the HLV focus since it doesn't benefit the current Orion contractor.
Orion appears to be better off under the Senate proposal. Orion as a "CRV" actually hurt commercial crew because it was totally government-funded competition via a cost-plus contract.
As for "making it harder" on commercial crew, this is not true. If you are going to fly into space, dock to a station, etc you are very much most of the way there already. In addition, Boeing, SpaceX, etc all want to go to Bigelow modules. How do you expect that to work if they don't stay there until that crew is ready to leave?
With respect, I view things differently based on high level discussions with several key players at NASA and industry.
Orion as a CRV doesn't hurt commercial crew, since commercial crew providers had already weighed in that it was an acceptable compromise. This was obvious to those of us at the NSS meeting in early April when the idea was first mooted.
The stay time at a Bigelow facility is much shorter (one month vs. six months or more for ISS). Further, the requirements for ISS lifeboat duty are likely going to be different for a commercial station, since the mode of operation of the facilities differ.
In the end, this Senate bill is unlikely to pass the House, in my view, or if it does, this Administration will find ways to circumvent it. Consider the game being played regarding the offshore drilling moratorium. I am not optimistic that we will see anything but further stagnation as the result of the games being played in the Senate.
As to your first point, all I will say is read this:
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100521-orion-lifeboat-making-waves.html
On your second point, why is the one month versus 6 months significant? I agree the mode of operation will probably be different, yet when it comes to crew escape, the absolute basic requirement is to get out. That will be no different and any vehicle that can remain attached to the station, whatever station, to bring the crew home at normal end of mission can also serve as a CRV.
On your third point, I'd like to know what data you have to support any of that.
Depends on what you mean by logistics systems. If, say, you want a SEP demonstrator, instead of just flying around Earth orbit with it (like the FTD was supposed), attach a science payload and fly it to somewhere interesting. Note that this is being done right now by the Dawn spacecraft, which is not only a technology demonstrator (it just broke the record for most in-space delta v @ 4.4 km/s), but also planned to return very useful science from the largest two asteroids.
Likewise, instead of demoing aerocapture on Earth (again, as the FTD would have done), demo it on Mars with a low-cost science orbiter. Use a prop-transfer demo to send an orbiter or lander to the Moon. And so on; this doesn't take a whole lot of creativity...
The bill has only building the HLV. it doesn't describe missions for it.
If you actually read the bill, you'll note that they direct the National Academies to conduct a proper study to determine those missions. In other words, instead of dictating a target, they provide the money for the expensive bit (SLS) and then ask the community what to do with it.
Unlikely Obama will veto it. Not worth the political capital it would cost.
I believe the ultimate bottom line is this:"Unwilling or unable"? Do you seriously think that Boeing/LockMart/ULA would decline a contract to build a HLV?
...
2) NASA should pave the way in funding heavy lift vehicles for heavy lift missions to LEO and BEO by doing what commercial companies are unwilling or unable to do cost effectively at this time.
As for cost effective: if "Heavy lift" is 40mT, it's dirt-cheap. If "Heavy lift" is 75mT, it is likely to be vastly cheaper than SDHLV. Either is "cost effective". If you need 100mT, then SDHLV is an option.
-Alex
Unlikely Obama will veto it. Not worth the political capital it would cost.
If he's worried about political capital, he wouldn't have proposed canceling Constellation to begin with.
It will allow him to regain some without loss of face which his advisors made him lose
For over 30 years space advocates have looked to strong presidential leadership in space policy as the sine qua non of forwarding their space exploration agendas. Kennedy's bold decision to race the Soviets to the moon in the 1960s represents the high-water mark of presidential leadership in space matters. But as this collection of essays by 11 presidential scholars demonstrates, the power of the president is more limited than space advocates seem to realize. Each essay reviews every administration's space policies since Eisenhower to reveal the complex relationships among the presidency, Congress, and the bureaucracy that produce policy.
. . . overreliance by space advocates on the power of the "imperial presidency" to set the space agenda single-handedly has hampered implementation of expanding space efforts . . .
Unlikely Obama will veto it. Not worth the political capital it would cost.
If he's worried about political capital, he wouldn't have proposed canceling Constellation to begin with.
One month vs. six months is significant because everything on the vehicle will have to be certified for 6 months stay in space. This leads to increased expenses and less flexibility about design not to mention increased logistical costs (need more capsules). There is no law that states the commercial crew has to be the crew escape or even that a NASA craft needs to be both crew escape and crew transit. The only reason why Orion is capable of long term storage was because they envisioned a use for it on a lunar mission. Otherwise they would have gladly dumped the ISS and not had that requirement.
A designated escape capsule opens up new possibilities. For instance on a Bigelow station you could have people staying varying amounts of time in space rather than forcing everyone to leave at once. If the station is visited once every two months by commercial crew then you can sell trip times of say 2 weeks for short visits and two months. If you use a commercial cargo that can double as commercial crew like dragon or dream chaser you gain the ability to de crew the station whenever the cargo craft arrives. So now you can sell trips of two weeks, one month, and two months perhaps.
For the ISS using Orion as CRV gives it a reason to exist. If commercial crew is available there is no reason for NASA to use Orion for crew transfer. In that case we should continue paying Soyuz for crew rescue and support American industry by launching crew on commercal. Not to mention it will very likely be cheaper than using Orion for the job. An LEO Orion going to the ISS is in danger of being obsolete. An BEO Orion without a mission is going to be one expensive LEO craft. Orion as CRV might be expensive but at least it has a reason to exist.
One month vs. six months is significant because everything on the vehicle will have to be certified for 6 months stay in space. This leads to increased expenses and less flexibility about design not to mention increased logistical costs (need more capsules). There is no law that states the commercial crew has to be the crew escape or even that a NASA craft needs to be both crew escape and crew transit. The only reason why Orion is capable of long term storage was because they envisioned a use for it on a lunar mission. Otherwise they would have gladly dumped the ISS and not had that requirement.
A designated escape capsule opens up new possibilities. For instance on a Bigelow station you could have people staying varying amounts of time in space rather than forcing everyone to leave at once. If the station is visited once every two months by commercial crew then you can sell trip times of say 2 weeks for short visits and two months. If you use a commercial cargo that can double as commercial crew like dragon or dream chaser you gain the ability to de crew the station whenever the cargo craft arrives. So now you can sell trips of two weeks, one month, and two months perhaps.
For the ISS using Orion as CRV gives it a reason to exist. If commercial crew is available there is no reason for NASA to use Orion for crew transfer. In that case we should continue paying Soyuz for crew rescue and support American industry by launching crew on commercal. Not to mention it will very likely be cheaper than using Orion for the job. An LEO Orion going to the ISS is in danger of being obsolete. An BEO Orion without a mission is going to be one expensive LEO craft. Orion as CRV might be expensive but at least it has a reason to exist.
Ok....if you say so. Bizzare but ok.
I believe the ultimate bottom line is this:"Unwilling or unable"? Do you seriously think that Boeing/LockMart/ULA would decline a contract to build a HLV?
...
2) NASA should pave the way in funding heavy lift vehicles for heavy lift missions to LEO and BEO by doing what commercial companies are unwilling or unable to do cost effectively at this time.
As for cost effective: if "Heavy lift" is 40mT, it's dirt-cheap. If "Heavy lift" is 75mT, it is likely to be vastly cheaper than SDHLV. Either is "cost effective". If you need 100mT, then SDHLV is an option.
-Alex
What man-rated 75mT ULA HLV would be 'vastly cheaper' than the equivalent in functionality $9bn Jupiter-130 ? References please.
Obama’s plan is to think about it for 5 years (R & D), build it later and possibly fly in the 2020’s. This after Bolden has already stated that there is no game changing technology for earth to orbit vehicles. So we would spend billions for minor improvements at best (1-2% ?).
The Senate plan says retire shuttle, kill Ares and use the money to build a HLV now. I see this as insurance for the ISS, future large LEO missions and leading the way into BEO after spinning our wheels in LEO for the last 30 years. Humans must explore.
...........An BEO Orion without a mission is going to be one expensive LEO craft. Orion as CRV might be expensive but at least it has a reason to exist.
Ok....if you say so. Bizzare but ok.
He has a valid point. What are you going to use the Orion for? I guess you could rent it out.
5 SEC. 303. MULTI-PURPOSE CREW VEHICLE.
6 (a) INITIATION OF DEVELOPMENT.—
7 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall
8 pursue the development of a multi-purpose crew ve-
9 hicle to be available as soon as practicable, and no
10 later than for use with the Space Launch System.
11 The vehicle shall be based on designs and materials
12 developed in the Orion project.
20 (b) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.—The
21 transportation vehicle developed pursuant to subsection
22 (a) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:
23 (1) The capability to serve as the primary crew
24 transportation vehicle for missions beyond low-Earth
25 orbit.
1 (2) The capability to conduct regular in-space
2 operations, such as rendezvous, docking, and extra-
3 vehicular activities, in conjunction with payloads de-
4 livered by the Space Launch System ...
....
9 (3) The capability to provide an alternative
10 means of delivery of crew and cargo to the ISS, in
11 the event other vehicles, whether commercial vehicles
12 or partner-supplied vehicles, are unable to perform
13 that function.
14 (4) The capacity for efficient and timely evo-
15 lution, including the incorporation of new tech-
16 nologies, competition of sub-elements, and commer-
17 cial operations.
One important note (which had already been mentionned by 51D Mascot in his post of a couple of days ago) is that CRV duty would be provided by commercial crew. This is good news. Strangely enough, NASA cannot choose LM for the CRV unless it gets approval from Congress to do so. See page 41.
Doing this actually makes the commercial taxi problem harder. One benefit of the Orion crew rescue compromise was it off loaded long-duration stay time requirements onto a cost-plus contract and off the back of the taxi. It is not cost effective but it was a smart political compromise.
In the end, this authorization bill can be stalled by a single member of the Senate when it gets to the floor, no? If that is so based on Senate rules, then I'd expect the CO delegation to oppose the HLV focus since it doesn't benefit the current Orion contractor.
Orion appears to be better off under the Senate proposal. Orion as a "CRV" actually hurt commercial crew because it was totally government-funded competition via a cost-plus contract.
As for "making it harder" on commercial crew, this is not true. If you are going to fly into space, dock to a station, etc you are very much most of the way there already. In addition, Boeing, SpaceX, etc all want to go to Bigelow modules. How do you expect that to work if they don't stay there until that crew is ready to leave?
With respect, I view things differently based on high level discussions with several key players at NASA and industry.
Orion as a CRV doesn't hurt commercial crew, since commercial crew providers had already weighed in that it was an acceptable compromise. This was obvious to those of us at the NSS meeting in early April when the idea was first mooted.
The stay time at a Bigelow facility is much shorter (one month vs. six months or more for ISS). Further, the requirements for ISS lifeboat duty are likely going to be different for a commercial station, since the mode of operation of the facilities differ.
In the end, this Senate bill is unlikely to pass the House, in my view, or if it does, this Administration will find ways to circumvent it. Consider the game being played regarding the offshore drilling moratorium. I am not optimistic that we will see anything but further stagnation as the result of the games being played in the Senate.
As to your first point, all I will say is read this:
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100521-orion-lifeboat-making-waves.html
On your second point, why is the one month versus 6 months significant? I agree the mode of operation will probably be different, yet when it comes to crew escape, the absolute basic requirement is to get out. That will be no different and any vehicle that can remain attached to the station, whatever station, to bring the crew home at normal end of mission can also serve as a CRV.
On your third point, I'd like to know what data you have to support any of that.
Boeing is the only company expressing a concern in that article. Boeing is but one of many potential commercial crew providers. They are without question the one that is still mired in the past when it comes to contract approaches and cost/price, so it is clear they want to have more guarantees than say a SpaceX or SNC. But they also clearly don't misunderstand NASA's express intent of making the Orion CRV a crew return vehicle only.
Quoting:
"... Brewster Shaw, vice president and general manager of Houston-based Boeing Space Exploration, echoed ... concerns about building a strong business case for commercial crew.
“I do have to go to Chicago and convince [Boeing chief executive James] McNerney that there’s a reasonable business case with acceptable risk to Boeing’s bottom line and Boeing’s reputation and its brand before he’ll allow me to enter into this kind of agreement with the government,” he said during his presentation. “But I’m ever hopeful.” "
Yes, if it was offered as an ascent vehicle, it would be unfair competition, but I have it on good authority that is not the plan. (At the same time I don't intend to reveal sources and give ammunition to opponents of a commercial approach.)
In addition, the LM representative is quoted by Space News:
"Ken Reightler, vice president for NASA program integration at Denver-based Lockheed Martin Space Systems, said it was too soon for other companies to worry about an Orion lifeboat skewing the competition for NASA’s commercial crew business. "
This statement confirms my interpretation.
On the duration point, issues of orbital debris protection arise (mass for that scales as a function of stay time), as well as propulsion system seal lifetimes (one of the factors that limit Soyuz stay time). There are other issues as well. None of these are showstoppers, but every little bit helps or hurts, especially if there are people within the NASA organization who are trying to use VV and CRV rules as a way to impede progress. I'm not saying there are, only that one wants to reduce the possibility for such mischief.
Finally, I said "in my view" which clearly identifies my comments as opinion. I will keep my own council on whether or not my opinion is informed, just as you and others do for your opinions.
Obama’s plan is to think about it for 5 years (R & D), build it later and possibly fly in the 2020’s. This after Bolden has already stated that there is no game changing technology for earth to orbit vehicles. So we would spend billions for minor improvements at best (1-2% ?).
The Senate plan says retire shuttle, kill Ares and use the money to build a HLV now. I see this as insurance for the ISS, future large LEO missions and leading the way into BEO after spinning our wheels in LEO for the last 30 years. Humans must explore.
I don't think we've been "spinning our wheels in LEO for the last 30 years" but hopefully you are correct that the Senate plan will have us get started soon on building an HLV as "insurance for the ISS, future large LEO missions and leading the way into BEO".
Cheers!
Also it may or may not be called "Orion", the Draft Bill refers to it as the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle.
...
In other words, not just a bare-bones ISS taxi, or a stripped-down CRV for ISS, but a real enabler of flexible missions in LEO, cis-lunar space, and beyond.
One month vs. six months is significant because everything on the vehicle will have to be certified for 6 months stay in space. This leads to increased expenses and less flexibility about design not to mention increased logistical costs (need more capsules). There is no law that states the commercial crew has to be the crew escape or even that a NASA craft needs to be both crew escape and crew transit. The only reason why Orion is capable of long term storage was because they envisioned a use for it on a lunar mission. Otherwise they would have gladly dumped the ISS and not had that requirement.
A designated escape capsule opens up new possibilities. For instance on a Bigelow station you could have people staying varying amounts of time in space rather than forcing everyone to leave at once. If the station is visited once every two months by commercial crew then you can sell trip times of say 2 weeks for short visits and two months. If you use a commercial cargo that can double as commercial crew like dragon or dream chaser you gain the ability to de crew the station whenever the cargo craft arrives. So now you can sell trips of two weeks, one month, and two months perhaps.
For the ISS using Orion as CRV gives it a reason to exist. If commercial crew is available there is no reason for NASA to use Orion for crew transfer. In that case we should continue paying Soyuz for crew rescue and support American industry by launching crew on commercal. Not to mention it will very likely be cheaper than using Orion for the job. An LEO Orion going to the ISS is in danger of being obsolete. An BEO Orion without a mission is going to be one expensive LEO craft. Orion as CRV might be expensive but at least it has a reason to exist.
Ok....if you say so. Bizzare but ok.
He has a valid point. What are you going to use the Orion for? I guess you could rent it out.
Also it may or may not be called "Orion", the Draft Bill refers to it as the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle.
...
In other words, not just a bare-bones ISS taxi, or a stripped-down CRV for ISS, but a real enabler of flexible missions in LEO, cis-lunar space, and beyond.
We already have the Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle acronym (SDLV).
I'm thinking this is the Orion Derived Crew Vehicle (ODCV).
cheers, Martin
What will Orion and the HLV be used for before we start BEO (from 2017 to the 2020s)?
What will Orion and the HLV be used for before we start BEO (from 2017 to the 2020s)?
In orbit test flights for one, shake-down cruises and yes, flights to the ISS.
Thanks for your comments. You mentionned before that you were a participant in the first round of CCDev, so you obviously understand this process better than anyone else. But I would have thought that commercial providers would be happy to have the opportunity to bid for the crew rescue vehicule services. Providing commercial crew ferrying services to the ISS only twice a year seems like a limited opportunity. Providing CRV services gives them a chance to expand on the services being provided.
As you say, these additionnal CRV requirements add complexity and I suspect that it could make things more difficult for Boeing/Bigelow as they were trying to strip down their capsule of any uneccessary functions and keep it as simple as possible. However, on the flip side, the amount of their contract for services will be increased and they will have more chances of being profitable on two contracts (rather than just one contract).
The only negative aspect I see to this commercial CRV plan is that the Senate is adding CRV functions as a requirement for commercial crew but yet they are reducing the funding for commercial crew by more than half. I would have expected the opposite to occur: if you increase requirements, you should also increase the funding.
I also believe that by slashing commercial crew funding by half, you are possibly limiting yourself to funding only two commercial crew providers with the new CCDev (e.g. SpaceX, Boeing and ULA). But I hope that I am wrong about that. I hope that that the funding for commercial crew will be increased in the final bill as I would like to see more than 2 projects funded under the new CCDev. Especially given the fact that some of these proposals such as Blue Origin and Dream Chaser can also be used for suborbital purposes.
Can you elaborate on that why this point is not valid? What will Orion and the HLV be used for before we start BEO (from 2017 to the 2020s)?
What will Orion and the HLV be used for before we start BEO (from 2017 to the 2020s)?
In orbit test flights for one, shake-down cruises and yes, flights to the ISS.
Flights to the ISS to do what? Don't forget that commercial crew and cargo have priority (this is actually made clear in the proposed bill).
I am not sure what you mean by shake-down cruises. Do you mean like an Apollo 8 flight? Flights to Lagrange points? Can we afford to do those under this bill (prior to the ISS being deorbited)?
What will Orion and the HLV be used for before we start BEO (from 2017 to the 2020s)?
In orbit test flights for one, shake-down cruises and yes, flights to the ISS.
Flights to the ISS to do what?
I am not sure what you mean by shake-down cruises. Do you mean like an Apollo 8 flight?
They won't be. They will be under development and construction.
Florida Today are liking it (not sure why they don't put names in the byline for these op-eds):
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100714/OPINION/100713051/1006/NEWS01/Our+views++Breaking+the+impasse+%28July+14%29
What will Orion and the HLV be used for before we start BEO (from 2017 to the 2020s)?
In orbit test flights for one, shake-down cruises and yes, flights to the ISS.
Flights to the ISS to do what? Don't forget that commercial crew and cargo have priority (this is actually made clear in the proposed bill).
I am not sure what you mean by shake-down cruises. Do you mean like an Apollo 8 flight? Flights to Lagrange points? Can we afford to do those under this bill (prior to the ISS being deorbited)?
Visit, crew exchange, minor resupply, test the docking port. It would all be part of the test flights.
Test flights and shake-down cruises are one in the same. They couldn’t do an Apollo style mission without an EDS.
Thanks for your comments. You mentionned before that you were a participant in the first round of CCDev, so you obviously understand this process better than anyone else. But I would have thought that commercial providers would be happy to have the opportunity to bid for the crew rescue vehicule services. Providing commercial crew ferrying services to the ISS only twice a year seems like a limited opportunity. Providing CRV services gives them a chance to expand on the services being provided.
As you say, these additionnal CRV requirements add complexity and I suspect that it could make things more difficult for Boeing/Bigelow as they were trying to strip down their capsule of any uneccessary functions and keep it as simple as possible. However, on the flip side, the amount of their contract for services will be increased and they will have more chances of being profitable on two contracts (rather than just one contract).
The only negative aspect I see to this commercial CRV plan is that the Senate is adding CRV functions as a requirement for commercial crew but yet they are reducing the funding for commercial crew by more than half. I would have expected the opposite to occur: if you increase requirements, you should also increase the funding.
I also believe that by slashing commercial crew funding by half, you are possibly limiting yourself to funding only two commercial crew providers with the new CCDev (e.g. SpaceX, Boeing and ULA). But I hope that I am wrong about that. I hope that that the funding for commercial crew will be increased in the final bill as I would like to see more than 2 projects funded under the new CCDev. Especially given the fact that some of these proposals such as Blue Origin and Dream Chaser can also be used for suborbital purposes.
(Note: I edited out previous comments to shorten the post.)
Yes, I was the founder of t/Space with David Gump, and we proposed on both rounds of COTS. I don't know that this gives me any better understanding of the process, but it certainly meant I had skin in the game. Torn, raw and bloody, but nevertheless skin...
Of course commercial firms would like to play in a lifeboat contract for goods or services. My acceptance of the Orion CRV compromise has nothing to do with that desire, only with the recognition that in politics, the deals made have either winners and losers, or an equality of dissatisfaction. It was unrealistic to assume Orion would simply go away "...into that good night" without a fight, so spending some money to take it off the table as a near-term threat to commercial crew seemed astute to me.
I was frankly surprised by the magnitude of the original dollar request for commercial crew by the Administration. So losing a big part of it is not too bad from that perspective. Yet given that some firms can't seem to conceive of delivering a capability without sucking up all the available dollars (no matter how larger that amount may be) I'd prefer some serious dollar number be put on the table (lets say $3B) and that the rules be that no single firm can have more than $500M. This approach greatly increases the pool of contractors and keeps cost to the government down. It might be possible to design a contract scheme whereby for amounts under – say – $300M there is no "skin" required, while for amounts over the matching must be one to one (unlike COTS where the match was purely token).
By the way, I think any attempt to use an orbital capsule/vehicle for a suborbital market is doomed from the outset. The markets and mission requirements are simply not compatible.
What will Orion and the HLV be used for before we start BEO (from 2017 to the 2020s)?
In orbit test flights for one, shake-down cruises and yes, flights to the ISS.
Flights to the ISS to do what?
Did you look at the JSC presentation that Chris recently posted an article about? Much the same as for what NASA is currently using shuttle - single-launch logistics and mid-expedition crew transfer. Orion/SSPDM could also be used to deliver, attack and outfit new modules in a single launch (one plan for the inflatable test module is to attach it to the ISS - ISSP are pretty interested in that).
Naturally, before the commercial crew taxis are operatonal, Orion will also carry out combined crew transfer/CRV duties. Even though six person launch will have to wait to block-II, block-I should still be able to handle the lower-mass six-person return, so the block-I could act as a lifeboat the same as the Soyuz.
I was frankly surprised by the magnitude of the original dollar request for commercial crew by the Administration. So losing a big part of it is not too bad from that perspective. Yet given that some firms can't seem to conceive of delivering a capability without sucking up all the available dollars (no matter how larger that amount may be) I'd prefer some serious dollar number be put on the table (lets say $3B) and that the rules be that no single firm can have more than $500M. This approach greatly increases the pool of contractors and keeps cost to the government down. It might be possible to design a contract scheme whereby for amounts under – say – $300M there is no "skin" required, while for amounts over the matching must be one to one (unlike COTS where the match was purely token).
By the way, I think any attempt to use an orbital capsule/vehicle for a suborbital market is doomed from the outset. The markets and mission requirements are simply not compatible.
I was frankly surprised by the magnitude of the original dollar request for commercial crew by the Administration. So losing a big part of it is not too bad from that perspective. Yet given that some firms can't seem to conceive of delivering a capability without sucking up all the available dollars (no matter how larger that amount may be) I'd prefer some serious dollar number be put on the table (lets say $3B) and that the rules be that no single firm can have more than $500M. This approach greatly increases the pool of contractors and keeps cost to the government down. It might be possible to design a contract scheme whereby for amounts under – say – $300M there is no "skin" required, while for amounts over the matching must be one to one (unlike COTS where the match was purely token).
By the way, I think any attempt to use an orbital capsule/vehicle for a suborbital market is doomed from the outset. The markets and mission requirements are simply not compatible.
I hope that is what this bill would do, help define the requirements, dollar amounts each has to contribute to this public/private partnership, etc. This is definitely needed before majorly committing to something and should go a long way (hopefully) in answering the questions I have been posing for a long time.
I agree with you on the orbital/sub-orbital market. An orbital vehicle flying a sub-orbit mission is more than is required and will be over-priced. Obviously a sub-orbital vehicle cannot do orbital missions. Maybe, depending on the design, you could use the same OML but otherwise vastly differnt requirements.
Thanks for your comments. You mentionned before that you were a participant in the first round of CCDev, so you obviously understand this process better than anyone else. But I would have thought that commercial providers would be happy to have the opportunity to bid for the crew rescue vehicule services. Providing commercial crew ferrying services to the ISS only twice a year seems like a limited opportunity. Providing CRV services gives them a chance to expand on the services being provided.
As you say, these additionnal CRV requirements add complexity and I suspect that it could make things more difficult for Boeing/Bigelow as they were trying to strip down their capsule of any uneccessary functions and keep it as simple as possible. However, on the flip side, the amount of their contract for services will be increased and they will have more chances of being profitable on two contracts (rather than just one contract).
The only negative aspect I see to this commercial CRV plan is that the Senate is adding CRV functions as a requirement for commercial crew but yet they are reducing the funding for commercial crew by more than half. I would have expected the opposite to occur: if you increase requirements, you should also increase the funding.
I also believe that by slashing commercial crew funding by half, you are possibly limiting yourself to funding only two commercial crew providers with the new CCDev (e.g. SpaceX, Boeing and ULA). But I hope that I am wrong about that. I hope that that the funding for commercial crew will be increased in the final bill as I would like to see more than 2 projects funded under the new CCDev. Especially given the fact that some of these proposals such as Blue Origin and Dream Chaser can also be used for suborbital purposes.
(Note: I edited out previous comments to shorten the post.)
Yes, I was the founder of t/Space with David Gump, and we proposed on both rounds of COTS. I don't know that this gives me any better understanding of the process, but it certainly meant I had skin in the game. Torn, raw and bloody, but nevertheless skin...
Of course commercial firms would like to play in a lifeboat contract for goods or services. My acceptance of the Orion CRV compromise has nothing to do with that desire, only with the recognition that in politics, the deals made have either winners and losers, or an equality of dissatisfaction. It was unrealistic to assume Orion would simply go away "...into that good night" without a fight, so spending some money to take it off the table as a near-term threat to commercial crew seemed astute to me.
I was frankly surprised by the magnitude of the original dollar request for commercial crew by the Administration. So losing a big part of it is not too bad from that perspective. Yet given that some firms can't seem to conceive of delivering a capability without sucking up all the available dollars (no matter how larger that amount may be) I'd prefer some serious dollar number be put on the table (lets say $3B) and that the rules be that no single firm can have more than $500M. This approach greatly increases the pool of contractors and keeps cost to the government down. It might be possible to design a contract scheme whereby for amounts under – say – $300M there is no "skin" required, while for amounts over the matching must be one to one (unlike COTS where the match was purely token).
By the way, I think any attempt to use an orbital capsule/vehicle for a suborbital market is doomed from the outset. The markets and mission requirements are simply not compatible.
Thanks for your comments. Essentially, you are saying that the Orion CRV was a better compromise than this bill. That's fair.
Why do you say that the match of funding under COTS was purely token? Kistler had its COTS agreement terminated because they couldn't come up with their own funding of $500M (however, I don't know how much funding SpaceX and Orbital were asked to come up wth under COTS).
Don't forget that commercial crew and cargo have priority (this is actually made clear in the proposed bill).Not sure if I'm up to date. The new Nelson bill was supposed to wind down commerical activities a lot. Just from memory, the cash spent on commercial was supposed to go down from $6bn/5 years to something link $800-ish mln in the next 3 years? Did I get it wrong?
I believe the ultimate bottom line is this:"Unwilling or unable"? Do you seriously think that Boeing/LockMart/ULA would decline a contract to build a HLV?
...
2) NASA should pave the way in funding heavy lift vehicles for heavy lift missions to LEO and BEO by doing what commercial companies are unwilling or unable to do cost effectively at this time.
As for cost effective: if "Heavy lift" is 40mT, it's dirt-cheap. If "Heavy lift" is 75mT, it is likely to be vastly cheaper than SDHLV. Either is "cost effective". If you need 100mT, then SDHLV is an option.
-Alex
What man-rated 75mT ULA HLV would be 'vastly cheaper' than the equivalent in functionality $9bn Jupiter-130 ? References please.
Well said.
I believe Alex misunderstood my point and even makes my case when he says that Boeing/LockMart/ULA would not decline a contract to build a HLV. Of course they will do it if paid but not on their own since there is no profitable business model as of yet. That’s why the government must prime the pump for a HLV (defined as > 75mT).
Spaceflight is a risky and expensive business. The Atlas and Delta have been flying for decades, so why haven’t Boeing or LockMart man-rated their vehicles on their own dime? While mostly rhetorical, I'm sure the Air Force had something to do with it but mostly because there wasn’t a profitable business model unless subsidized by the government. Only now are entrepreneurs like Elon Musk finding a business model to build a new vehicle and a crew capsule mostly on his own dime.
While this may work for small and medium lift vehicles, it does not for heavy lift and the government must lead the way. I think the real question is do we do it now or later.
Obama’s plan is to think about it for 5 years (R & D), build it later and possibly fly in the 2020’s. This after Bolden has already stated that there is no game changing technology for earth to orbit vehicles. So we would spend billions for minor improvements at best (1-2% ?).
The Senate plan says retire shuttle, kill Ares and use the money to build a HLV now. I see this as insurance for the ISS, future large LEO missions and leading the way into BEO after spinning our wheels in LEO for the last 30 years. Humans must explore.
Don't forget that commercial crew and cargo have priority (this is actually made clear in the proposed bill).Not sure if I'm up to date. The new Nelson bill was supposed to wind down commerical activities a lot. Just from memory, the cash spent on commercial was supposed to go down from $6bn/5 years to something link $800-ish mln in the next 3 years? Did I get it wrong?
(10) Congress restates its commitment, ex
25 pressed in the National Aeronautics and Space Ad-
1 ministration Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law
2 109–155) and the National Aeronautics and Space
3 Administration Authorization Act of 2008 (Public
4 Law 110–422), to the development of commercially
5 developed launch and delivery systems to the ISS for
6 crew and cargo missions. Congress reaffirms that
7 NASA shall make use of United States commercially
8 provided ISS crew transfer and crew rescue services
9 to the maximum extent practicable.
.....
By the time they get around to using the Orion it will be obsolete for future deep space missions.
1.I dunno; adding 10,000 ft3 of useable pressurized space to ISS' 35,000 ft3 in one shot would be really useful for habitability --
1. why? there is enough room now
.....
By the time they get around to using the Orion it will be obsolete for future deep space missions.
Um, wow, what is this based on? The bill language explicitly states that MPCV will be used for BEO missions, and what's more, it must also be designed so as to be easily evolved to meet future needs. Congress does not want a dead-end one-trick pony crew vehicle.
Mark S
Are you going to use Orion to go to Mars?
I'm not sure about using it to go to Mars, but it seems well suited for returning from Mars (the last bit of the journey).Are you going to use Orion to go to Mars?
Yes. ...
Since NASA's budget is not going to increase, something has to give.
There is still enough here for the commercial crew players to get started.
I'm not sure about using it to go to Mars, but it seems well suited for returning from Mars (the last bit of the journey).Are you going to use Orion to go to Mars?
Yes. ...
Please.
Please.
What? Are you actually going to call this bill a compromise? This is as much of a compromise as the Orion CRV imo. I'd view it more favorably if they had managed to bring the majority of the funding for the launcher from outside the agency.
1.I dunno; adding 10,000 ft3 of useable pressurized space to ISS' 35,000 ft3 in one shot would be really useful for habitability --
1. why? there is enough room now
Actually, they're really pressed for room. A little-known fact of on-board life is that all of the packing material for items brought up to the station (the equivalent of the styrofoam blocks packed around consumer electronics) must be kept. This is a contractual thing between NASA and the owners of the items, and there are a LOT of non-NASA items on the ISS. Right now, the ISS Logistics team is pulling their hair out trying to find more nooks/crannies where this stuff can be stowed - a non-trivial task. This, and the problematic toilets, are overlooked issues with extending the ISS. A nice big module or two would improve the situation a lot. At least for the clutter. The toilets are a different problem. ;D
Dean
Please.
What? Are you actually going to call this bill a compromise? This is as much of a compromise as the Orion CRV imo. I'd view it more favorably if they had managed to bring the majority of the funding for the launcher from outside the agency.
Yes it is a compromise. A compromise involves things both sides want.
Atlas and Delta never considered man rating their vehicles because it was not the intended application. By the time they get around to using the Orion it will be obsolete for future deep space missions.
NASA should be leading the way in crew and HLV development
Your claims are either unsubstantiated or OBE.
Please.
What? Are you actually going to call this bill a compromise? This is as much of a compromise as the Orion CRV imo. I'd view it more favorably if they had managed to bring the majority of the funding for the launcher from outside the agency.
Your claims are either unsubstantiated or OBE.
Order of the British Empire? Out of Body Experience?
Yes, it is a considerable compromise. For a full perspective, one must compare it not just to Obama's FY11 budget proposal, but also to the projections in Obama's FY10 budget proposal (the last budget for the PoR).
Yes, it is a considerable compromise. For a full perspective, one must compare it not just to Obama's FY11 budget proposal, but also to the projections in Obama's FY10 budget proposal (the last budget for the PoR).
So it's a compromise, because it's not the PoR? Ok.
Yes, it is a considerable compromise. For a full perspective, one must compare it not just to Obama's FY11 budget proposal, but also to the projections in Obama's FY10 budget proposal (the last budget for the PoR).
So it's a compromise, because it's not the PoR? Ok.
It looks like a few amendments to the Senate bill have been proposed so far:
* Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) amendment restoring commercial crew funding
* Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) amendment to restore technology funding
* Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) amendment to restore $15M CRuSR suborbital science funding
The Planetary Society and Space Frontier Foundation are urging constituents to call their senators to support the amendments.
http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00002584/
http://spacefrontier.org/2010/07/14/d-day-for-newspace/
I'm calling up Barbara Boxer's office now to thank her for putting forth the tech amendment and urge her support on the other amendments.
NASA should be leading the way in crew and HLV development
Why? You have yet to provide any basis for your arguments.
Any acknowledgement that NASA had gone down the wrong path and now urgent action is needed to remedy that should be accepted gratefully.
[edit]
The thing is, Cog, this is politics. In politics, you have to take whatever small crum or splinter you can and work with that. Things change slowly if at all and you need to make the most of every small step.
Then tell them to increase the budget appropriately as well.
Yes, it is a considerable compromise. For a full perspective, one must compare it not just to Obama's FY11 budget proposal, but also to the projections in Obama's FY10 budget proposal (the last budget for the PoR).
So it's a compromise, because it's not the PoR? Ok.
Yes it is a compromise. A compromise involves things both sides want.
Yet only SDHLV advocates are happy.
One way to increase funding for commercial crew would be to delay the HLV by at least a year.
Exploration technology and Space Technology go up by a lot in FY2012. The real hit is taken by commercial crew which is cut to less than half (to around $500 million per year in FY2012 and FY2013).
FY2012 comparison between senate draft bill and WH proposal:
$437.3M vs. $1.850B WH proposal for mid/high-TRL exploration technology
$100M vs. $506M for robotic precursors
$225M vs. $572M low/mid-TRL space technology
$400M vs. $1.400B commercial crew
Atlas and Delta never considered man rating their vehicles because it was not the intended application. By the time they get around to using the Orion it will be obsolete for future deep space missions.
Wrong. Where do you come up with this stuff? Your claims are either unsubstantiated or OBE.
Use of EELV for manned mission predates Constellation, they were to be used for OSP.
Manrating the EELV's is not a big deal, schedule or cost wise. It can be quickly, before any NASA development vehicle flies.
Also, your comment about Orion to Mars shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
One way to increase funding for commercial crew would be to delay the HLV by at least a year.
I've stated previously that commercial crew reductions aren't what's bothering me. If Jeff Greason can say "NASA needs commercial crew more than commercial crew needs NASA" this will be a intriguing test of those words. I'm just a weirdo that likes R&D and robotics is all.
Commercial advocates aren't happy becomes NASA goes back to the bad old days of developing their own launcher. Without a budget increase.
You are correct Jim. I am required to agree with everything you have to say.
This bill openly endorses commercial and funds it. They are trying to turn this into an "anti-commercial" arguement which is silly because no one is "anti-commercial". It simply asks for foundational questions to be answered first.
Commercial advocates aren't happy becomes NASA goes back to the bad old days of developing their own launcher. Without a budget increase.
No, that has nothing to do with it. They just want more money. Don't be so naive and assume it is some sort of noble cause.
This bill openly endorses commercial and funds it. They are trying to turn this into an "anti-commercial" arguement which is silly because no one is "anti-commercial". It simply asks for foundational questions to be answered first.
Yes, it is a considerable compromise. For a full perspective, one must compare it not just to Obama's FY11 budget proposal, but also to the projections in Obama's FY10 budget proposal (the last budget for the PoR).
So it's a compromise, because it's not the PoR? Ok.
Yes. Have you actually looked at the numbers? The Senate bill increases funding for technology and commercial services considerably compared to the projections from FY10. It looks like a cut only because it's less than what the president requested. But everyone with any knowledge of the process has been aware that the president's request is just the opening round of the negotiation, and that the final numbers were going to be in between.
Spreadsheet attached.
Yeah, how dare they actually want to expand the economy! In America, our space companies are only allowed to be a money sink for taxes. We never invest in changing that, either.Commercial advocates aren't happy becomes NASA goes back to the bad old days of developing their own launcher. Without a budget increase.No, that has nothing to do with it. They just want more money. Don't be so naive and assume it is some sort of noble cause.
This bill openly endorses commercial and funds it. They are trying to turn this into an "anti-commercial" arguement which is silly because no one is "anti-commercial". It simply asks for foundational questions to be answered first.What about the foundational questions about billions spent and wasted by certain NASA centers on one failed project after another?
Commercial advocates aren't happy becomes NASA goes back to the bad old days of developing their own launcher. Without a budget increase.
No, that has nothing to do with it. They just want more money. Don't be so naive and assume it is some sort of noble cause.
This bill openly endorses commercial and funds it. They are trying to turn this into an "anti-commercial" arguement which is silly because no one is "anti-commercial". It simply asks for foundational questions to be answered first.
He means that under the FY2011 Budget, the HLV would have been operated by a commercial company which could have provided some savings that could have been used elsewhere.
Commercial advocates aren't happy becomes NASA goes back to the bad old days of developing their own launcher. Without a budget increase.
No, that has nothing to do with it. They just want more money. Don't be so naive and assume it is some sort of noble cause.
This bill openly endorses commercial and funds it. They are trying to turn this into an "anti-commercial" arguement which is silly because no one is "anti-commercial". It simply asks for foundational questions to be answered first.
He means that under the FY2011 Budget, the HLV would have been operated by a commercial company which could have provided some savings that could have been used elsewhere.
It will be operated by a commercial company or companies. It will be designed, developed, tested and evaluated by a commercial company or companies. It will be NASA "owned" and have NASA oversight.
The bill also says it can be used for non-NASA purposes.
‘‘Space Launch System’’ means the follow-on gov
7 ernment-owned civil launch system developed, man
8 aged, and operated by NASA to serve as a key com
9 ponent to expand human presence beyond low-Earth
10 orbit.
1. Space Launch System: $7.15B (1.9+2.65+2.6)
2. Multi-purpose crew vehicle/Orion: $4B (1.3+1.3+1.4)
3. Mid/high-TRL exploration technology, heavy-lift, exploration architectures, and demonstrations: $975.9M (WH proposed $5.45B)
4. Robotic exploration precursor missions: 44+100+100= $244M (WH proposed $1.33B)
5. Low/mid-TRL space technology: 225+450+500= $1.175B (WH proposed $2.64B)
6. Commercial crew: 312+400+500= $1.2B (WH proposed $3.3B)
Wrong. Where do you come up with this stuff? Your claims are either unsubstantiated or OBE.You are correct Jim. I am required to agree with everything you have to say.
Use of EELV for manned mission predates Constellation, they were to be used for OSP.
Manrating the EELV's is not a big deal, schedule or cost wise. It can be quickly, before any NASA development vehicle flies.
Also, your comment about Orion to Mars shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
Commercial advocates aren't happy becomes NASA goes back to the bad old days of developing their own launcher. Without a budget increase.
No, that has nothing to do with it. They just want more money. Don't be so naive and assume it is some sort of noble cause.
This bill openly endorses commercial and funds it. They are trying to turn this into an "anti-commercial" arguement which is silly because no one is "anti-commercial". It simply asks for foundational questions to be answered first.
He means that under the FY2011 Budget, the HLV would have been operated by a commercial company which could have provided some savings that could have been used elsewhere.
It will be operated by a commercial company or companies. It will be designed, developed, tested and evaluated by a commercial company or companies. It will be NASA "owned" and have NASA oversight.
The bill also says it can be used for non-NASA purposes.
Sorry, I meant to say "owned, managed and operated" by a commercial company.
Incidentally, according to page 10 of the the bill:Quote‘‘Space Launch System’’ means the follow-on gov
7 ernment-owned civil launch system developed, man
8 aged, and operated by NASA to serve as a key com
9 ponent to expand human presence beyond low-Earth
10 orbit.
What was the distribution of the energies? Were the events proton's, stripped helium nucleus, gamma's, neutrons? Secondary or primary.
Actually, certain plastics make for very good solar wind radiation shielding (protons). Metal actually intensifies radiation trapped in the Van Allen's.
None of that will help you with a GRB. Or a CME with a high neutron flux.
To remind you, solder joints in unmanned spacecraft sometimes FAIL due to radiation.
The X-15 flew 199 flights - each of them experimental
That is what I find lacking. All we have here is political gotchas in a circle jerk game.
Yes, it is a considerable compromise. For a full perspective, one must compare it not just to Obama's FY11 budget proposal, but also to the projections in Obama's FY10 budget proposal (the last budget for the PoR).
So it's a compromise, because it's not the PoR? Ok.
Yes. Have you actually looked at the numbers? The Senate bill increases funding for technology and commercial services considerably compared to the projections from FY10. It looks like a cut only because it's less than what the president requested. But everyone with any knowledge of the process has been aware that the president's request is just the opening round of the negotiation, and that the final numbers were going to be in between.
Spreadsheet attached.
Thanks for this. This is exactly what I was looking for. I can't help but wonder if people would have been happy with these numbers if it was what was proposed out of the gate. Instead its compared to the first round of bargaining as you said.
Was also wondering...if NASA has been given Augustine's $3B increase, could we have D) All of the above?
That's what I find so frustrating about this whole mess -- Constellation may not have been the most optimal system, due to early rookie mistakes in the design process that were not corrected or noticed until detail design began -- causing cost overruns and schedule slippages -- but they were going somewhere; even if it was not optimal -- whereas any new HLV system that results from the Senate bill is going to be stuck in development hell for several more years, assuming it even gets out of devhell.
Stay focused. The issue that killed VSE / prior Cx not addressed here with "Cx Lite" is that of containing out of control (one might even say "irresponsible" if people don't get thin skinned - and you know exactly what I mean by this) dev costs, yielding a LV that commands an unsupportable budget that can't be throttled up/down.Commercial advocates aren't happy becomes NASA goes back to the bad old days of developing their own launcher. Without a budget increase.
No, that has nothing to do with it. They just want more money. Don't be so naive and assume it is some sort of noble cause.
This bill openly endorses commercial and funds it. They are trying to turn this into an "anti-commercial" arguement which is silly because no one is "anti-commercial". It simply asks for foundational questions to be answered first.
He means that under the FY2011 Budget, the HLV would have been operated by a commercial company which could have provided some savings that could have been used elsewhere.
It will be operated by a commercial company or companies. It will be designed, developed, tested and evaluated by a commercial company or companies. It will be NASA "owned" and have NASA oversight.
The bill also says it can be used for non-NASA purposes.
You don't need or want an HLV for testing out propellant depot technologies. That's a great way of making it cost several times more than it needs to.
Has anyone mentioned the amendments here yet?
The thing is -- we are going to want to test fly our Orion-HLV with 70 mt to orbit capability at least twice unmanned before we declare them man-rated and put meatbags in them.
You don't need or want an HLV for testing out propellant depot technologies. That's a great way of making it cost several times more than it needs to.
The thing is -- we are going to want to test fly our Orion-HLV with 70 mt to orbit capability at least twice unmanned before we declare them man-rated and put meatbags in them.
Even if we put an Orion CSM onto it; that leaves 45mt of capability going to waste. So why not use the test flights to do something useful with that payload?
It looks like a few amendments to the Senate bill have been proposed so far:Thanks for noting these...any chance these are online?
* Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) amendment restoring commercial crew funding
* Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) amendment to restore technology funding
* Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) amendment to restore $15M CRuSR suborbital science funding
The Planetary Society and Space Frontier Foundation are urging constituents to call their senators to support the amendments.
http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00002584/
http://spacefrontier.org/2010/07/14/d-day-for-newspace/
I'm calling up Barbara Boxer's office now to thank her for putting forth the tech amendment and urge her support on the other amendments.
I love HK-47.
It is necessary to 'debug' / 'optimize' the efficacy of environmental systems.QuoteWhat was the distribution of the energies? Were the events proton's, stripped helium nucleus, gamma's, neutrons? Secondary or primary.
At a fundamental level; the breakdown you are asking about is only of specific interest to the engineers designing the radiation protection subsystem; and to the medical staff charged with calculating the total radiation dose the astronauts recieved post-flight.
As an aside, are you familiar with BIOCORE -- flown on Apollo 17? We cut open the braaaaaaaains of five mice who flew around the moon on a pressurized capsule in the CM for cosmic ray/particle medical studies.
Yes. The point is you need to know more to test and validate.QuoteActually, certain plastics make for very good solar wind radiation shielding (protons). Metal actually intensifies radiation trapped in the Van Allen's.
Don't forget that under intense enough radiation bombardment, metals can become activicated (hot); and become low level radioactive waste.
But the comment about some plastics making good shielding is a very good point.
Due to our better materials science (compared to Apollo era); we can make more things double-hat as radiation shielding, allowing us to either reduce mass or increase the protection for the same mass.
And due to the fact that we have much better computing power available to us; the engineers can run much more detailed simulations of radiation particle behavior as they strike the spacecraft; and in turn optimize the shielding materials and locations for maximum efficiency.
But we won't make any real order of magnitude leaps in shielding efficiency unless unobtanium is invented.
Not with GRB's.QuoteNone of that will help you with a GRB. Or a CME with a high neutron flux.
Well, the dangers of a sudden unanticipated space radiation event are always going to be with space travel until we either:
A.) Invent unobtanium shielding or methods of shielding.
or
B.) The Hab Modules on spacecraft can afford to spend quite a lot of mass on shielding.
But we can take steps to attenuate unanticipated space radiation events, by having enough radiation sensors on the spacecraft so we can triangulate the origin of the USRE, and then rotate the craft so that the Service Module is facing towards the USRE; providing additional shielding to the meatbags up front.
Actually, we've had unmanned spacecraft disabled EARLY in flight, the same transit times as current planned for human missions.QuoteTo remind you, solder joints in unmanned spacecraft sometimes FAIL due to radiation.
Well also keep in mind that:
A.) The lifetimes of unmanned spacecraft are much longer than manned spacecraft; so cumulative radiation doses have more time to build up; plus they also have a higher probability of encountering an unanticipated space radiation event, due to spending more time in space.
and
B.) Since they are unmanned, they don't have a lot of the shielding that manned spacecraft have to protect the squishy human goo inside; which also does protect the mechanical and electricial internals.
QuoteThe X-15 flew 199 flights - each of them experimental
Good point. At what point do you think space travel will cross over from being experimental to merely "bleeding edge"?
Remember in the fifties and sixties, we thought nothing about watching thirty guys die each year at Edwards testing not experimental aircraft but the early models of the F-100, F-104 etc.
You and me both. But its also why we need "throttle up/down" costs.QuoteThat is what I find lacking. All we have here is political gotchas in a circle jerk game.
That's what I find so frustrating about this whole mess -- Constellation may not have been the most optimal system, due to early rookie mistakes in the design process that were not corrected or noticed until detail design began -- causing cost overruns and schedule slippages -- but they were going somewhere; even if it was not optimal -- whereas any new HLV system that results from the Senate bill is going to be stuck in development hell for several more years, assuming it even gets out of devhell.
Yes it is a compromise. A compromise involves things both sides want.
Yet only SDHLV advocates are happy.
Yes it is a compromise. A compromise involves things both sides want.
Yet only SDHLV advocates are happy.
I'm not sure why. Did the FY2011 supporters really think they were going to get everything in that?
If they did then they were delusional.
What will Orion and the HLV be used for before we start BEO (from 2017 to the 2020s)?
In orbit test flights for one, shake-down cruises and yes, flights to the ISS.
Flights to the ISS to do what?
Did you look at the JSC presentation that Chris recently posted an article about?
I'm not sure why. Did the FY2011 supporters really think they were going to get everything in that?
If they did then they were delusional.
What man-rated 75mT ULA HLV would be 'vastly cheaper' than the equivalent in functionality $9bn Jupiter-130 ? References please.Atlas V Phase II.
Of course they will do it if paid but not on their own since there is no profitable business model as of yet. That’s why the government must prime the pump for a HLV (defined as > 75mT).There is, apparently as yet, no (commercial) business model for any HLV whatsoever -- profitable doesn't enter into it. But you *can* buy heavy lift for NASA that shares costs with DOD & commercial.
...
The Atlas and Delta have been flying for decades, so why haven’t Boeing or LockMart man-rated their vehicles on their own dime? While mostly rhetorical, I'm sure the Air Force had something to do with it but mostly because there wasn’t a profitable business model unless subsidized by the government.
I'm not sure why. Did the FY2011 supporters really think they were going to get everything in that?
If they did then they were delusional.
I think what almost everybody hoped for after the Augustin Review was a plan that has a long time viability.
In the current FY2011 Senate NASA Authorization Bill both Commercial Crew and the new NASA developed Space Launch System seemed to be severely underfunded and it looks like it will be only a matter of time until one of them gets canceled.
Yes. It is delusional to think we have gotten anywhere at all.I'm not sure why. Did the FY2011 supporters really think they were going to get everything in that?
If they did then they were delusional.
I think what almost everybody hoped for after the Augustin Review was a plan that has a long time viability.
In the current FY2011 Senate NASA Authorization Bill both Commercial Crew and the new NASA developed Space Launch System seemed to be severely underfunded and it looks like it will be only a matter of time until one of them gets canceled.
The Senate bill increases funding for technology and commercial services considerably compared to the projections from FY10. It looks like a cut only because it's less than what the president requested.The problem is that the baseline spending on technology, to which you compare it, is so small. In this particular respect, NASA has been a joke. Griffin closed much of what little there used to be, to feed the gaping maw of CxP.
Yes it is a compromise. A compromise involves things both sides want.
Yet only SDHLV advocates are happy.
I'm not sure why. Did the FY2011 supporters really think they were going to get everything in that?
If they did then they were delusional.
Nice. If they aren't satisfied, they're morons. They don't have to "get everything", only something acceptable. My point is that a compromise should make both sides more or less agree. I don't see that happening. One side rejoices, the other is not pleased.
Look how many equate the whole FY2011 proposal to simply "commercial" capability.
Look how many equate the whole FY2011 proposal to simply "commercial" capability.
I don't know why the discussion has been framed as such, but I'm sure congressmen bashing commercial (in the hearings) more than anything else in the FY2011 proposition didn't help much.
Yes it is a compromise. A compromise involves things both sides want.
Yet only SDHLV advocates are happy.
I'm not sure why. Did the FY2011 supporters really think they were going to get everything in that?
If they did then they were delusional.
Nice. If they aren't satisfied, they're morons. They don't have to "get everything", only something acceptable. My point is that a compromise should make both sides more or less agree. I don't see that happening. One side rejoices, the other is not pleased.
Look how many equate the whole FY2011 proposal to simply "commercial" capability.
I don't know why the discussion has been framed as such, but I'm sure congressmen bashing commercial (in the hearings) more than anything else in the FY2011 proposition didn't help much.
Because they are congressman and no one has been able to provide specific details to them about cost, schedule, basic requirements, etc.
If you want to have people follow your lead, you need to be able to tell your story very well and have a solid implementation plan behind it. You tell me if we have seen that.
...Given: $19 billion budget and a HLV owned and operated by NASA, plus all the other bells and whistles of a NASA budget, there's NO chance of Altair. HLV guarantees that. Use available launchers and Earth-orbit rendezvous and commercial crew, and there's a CHANCE that you can develop and build a scaled down lander.
You are joking. The HLV side lost Altair and a Lunar base even though this was a policy enshrined in two NASA authorization acts. We now forced to joyride the Solar System instead ;).
You are joking. The HLV side lost Altair
and a Lunar base even though this was a policy enshrined in two NASA Authorization acts. We are now forced to joyride the Solar System instead without landing anywhere.
Look how many equate the whole FY2011 proposal to simply "commercial" capability.
I don't know why the discussion has been framed as such, but I'm sure congressmen bashing commercial (in the hearings) more than anything else in the FY2011 proposition didn't help much.
Because they are congressman and no one has been able to provide specific details to them about cost, schedule, basic requirements, etc.
If you want to have people follow your lead, you need to be able to tell your story very well and have a solid implementation plan behind it. You tell me if we have seen that.
My point was that they concentrated almost exclusively on commercial. The media (mainstream and the interwebs) also concentrated on that as a result. "Oldspace vs Newspace" became the "hot topic", so to speak.
...Given: $19 billion budget and a HLV owned and operated by NASA, plus all the other bells and whistles of a NASA budget, there's NO chance of Altair. HLV guarantees that. Use available launchers and Earth-orbit rendezvous and commercial crew, and there's a CHANCE that you can develop and build a scaled down lander.
You are joking. The HLV side lost Altair and a Lunar base even though this was a policy enshrined in two NASA authorization acts. We now forced to joyride the Solar System instead ;).
Why they were not able to sell their message with appropriate data to back it up, I'll let you decide.
The budget was never going to stay at just $19bn as this bill proves. We can junk all this new FY2011 nonsense and quite easily have had Altair with a SD-HLV and started building a Lunar Base.What are you talking about? FY2011 is $19 billion in both the White House version and the Nelson one, and they have the same total budgets for FY2012 and FY2013, as well (barely keeping up with inflation, I might add).
We can junk all this new FY2011 nonsense and quite easily have had Altair with a SD-HLV and started building a Lunar Base.
We can junk all this new FY2011 nonsense and quite easily have had Altair with a SD-HLV and started building a Lunar Base.
Don't forget flying unicorns.
Are you forgetting there's this Station thing overhead to support while you're developing your SDLV, your Orions and Altairs, concurrently?
We can junk all this new FY2011 nonsense and quite easily have had Altair with a SD-HLV and started building a Lunar Base.
Don't forget flying unicorns.
Are you forgetting there's this Station thing overhead to support while you're developing your SDLV, your Orions and Altairs, concurrently?
Take that out of all commercial company subsidies, let them discover real business models rather than relying on NASA suckling.
We can junk all this new FY2011 nonsense and quite easily have had Altair with a SD-HLV and started building a Lunar Base.
Don't forget flying unicorns.
Are you forgetting there's this Station thing overhead to support while you're developing your SDLV, your Orions and Altairs, concurrently?
Take that out of all commercial company subsidies, let them discover real business models rather than relying on NASA suckling.
What, the whole $6 B and you get yourself a brand new Altair and lunar bases for that price?
Wow, that must be a real bargain.
Hey, let's splash ISS in 2015 as well. That doesn't get us lunar bases either, so why bother.
Part 3 of the SD HLV articles - "Lunar/BEO – SD HLV, Commercial and International Architecture Outlined" - based on this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22265.0
Part 3 of the SD HLV articles - "Lunar/BEO – SD HLV, Commercial and International Architecture Outlined" - based on this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22265.0
Interesting stuff. But some of these missions require an earth departure stage. It's not clear to me what happens to the Earth Departure Stage under the senate bill. Would it still use a J-2X and when would it be ready? There is no requirement that the EDS be ready for the end of 2016 as far as I can tell.
J2-X enables three stage growth options though. Getting a 8.4m SSME HLV to 150mT may require this.Three stages isn't needed. What the heck is 150 tons needed for, anyway? Pay billions up front for no real clear benefit?
Now I hope all those crying over this SD-HLV can see how far pure VSE proponents have already traveled from what was a done deal between previous President and Congress.Indeed, there was a done deal between the President and Congress. But having a nice agreement for space ponies (or unicorns) don't make it so.
J2-X enables three stage growth options though. Getting a 8.4m SSME HLV to 150mT may require this.
J2-X enables three stage growth options though. Getting a 8.4m SSME HLV to 150mT may require this.Three stages isn't needed. What the heck is 150 tons needed for, anyway? Pay billions up front for no real clear benefit?
J2-X enables three stage growth options though. Getting a 8.4m SSME HLV to 150mT may require this.Three stages isn't needed. What the heck is 150 tons needed for, anyway? Pay billions up front for no real clear benefit?
I was talking about J-2X. RL-10 is awesome, just not high-thrust.J2-X enables three stage growth options though. Getting a 8.4m SSME HLV to 150mT may require this.Three stages isn't needed. What the heck is 150 tons needed for, anyway? Pay billions up front for no real clear benefit?
Who said it was up front? No one.
It says has an evolutionary capability if necessary. It does not say it will be put into practice.
(b) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.—The transportation vehicle developed pursuant to subsection (a) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:
..
(4) The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-elements, and commercial operations.
Now I hope all those crying over this SD-HLV can see how far pure VSE proponents have already traveled from what was a done deal between previous President and Congress.Indeed, there was a done deal between the President and Congress. But having a nice agreement for space ponies (or unicorns) don't make it so.
There is enough money on the planet to do a lunar base. But Congress never appropriated it. I assume you've read the Augustine report.
-Alex
As I understand that the President does not support the Senate bill, it seems likely that unanimous consent will not be obtained from the Senate. Therefore the bill must be scheduled for the debate by the Senate Majority leader. That's Harry Reid, who is unlikely to schedule legislation for debate that the President does not like.
"We're in a pretty tough spot," one Senate staffer admitted to me Tuesday.
Part 3 of the SD HLV articles - "Lunar/BEO – SD HLV, Commercial and International Architecture Outlined" - based on this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22265.0
I wonder if ATK has any sway with Harry Reid?If the bill does get stuck on the Senate calendar, we might find out; but it has to get to the floor first, and it will be interesting to see what happens with the amendments mentioned here earlier.
Part 3 of the SD HLV articles - "Lunar/BEO – SD HLV, Commercial and International Architecture Outlined" - based on this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22265.0
Is it just me or does this portion of the bill seem to emphasize sidemount for the inital LV?
Seems like sidemount may win out in the near tearm, terrible shame IMO, if true.................
Thoughts?
Sidemount was being worked first. It has more work history behind it.
Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Bill Nelson are apparently hosting a press conference discussing a "major breakthrough" on the authorization bill at 11:45am EST Thursday (tomorrow). The Commerce Committee will be meeting to mark up the bill prior to this.The Committee Executive Session (http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=7457bd6b-1721-4c17-994c-77595f3099ae&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=7&YearDisplay=2010) is scheduled for 10 am EDT.
Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Bill Nelson are apparently hosting a press conference discussing a "major breakthrough" on the authorization bill at 11:45am EST Thursday (tomorrow). The Commerce Committee will be meeting to mark up the bill prior to this.
Do you honestly believe the authorizers have been working in a vaccum with respect to the appropriators and others?
Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Bill Nelson are apparently hosting a press conference discussing a "major breakthrough" on the authorization bill at 11:45am EST Thursday (tomorrow). The Commerce Committee will be meeting to mark up the bill prior to this.
I'm personally wondering if they're going to announce an attempt at increasing the top-line for NASA, perhaps to the level the Augustine Committee proposed. An increased top-line could potentially accommodate both the HLV folks and the White House. The White House wouldn't want the political cost of proposing an even larger budget increase for NASA in the current economy, but the members of the Commerce committee might try it. Of course, it'd then be interesting to see what would happen when it reached the Appropriations committee...
I'm personally wondering if they're going to announce an attempt at increasing the top-line for NASA, perhaps to the level the Augustine Committee proposed. An increased top-line could potentially accommodate both the HLV folks and the White House. The White House wouldn't want the political cost of proposing an even larger budget increase for NASA in the current economy, but the members of the Commerce committee might try it. Of course, it'd then be interesting to see what would happen when it reached the Appropriations committee...
"......chanCe of Obama supporting it......."I'm personally wondering if they're going to announce an attempt at increasing the top-line for NASA, perhaps to the level the Augustine Committee proposed. An increased top-line could potentially accommodate both the HLV folks and the White House. The White House wouldn't want the political cost of proposing an even larger budget increase for NASA in the current economy, but the members of the Commerce committee might try it. Of course, it'd then be interesting to see what would happen when it reached the Appropriations committee...
Senator Nelson, & Boxer both are close with the President, I seriously doubt Nelson would put his neck out, and Boxer would bother to amend if there wasn't some change of Obama supporting it. They don't legislate in a vacuum.
If Senator Boxer and Warner's amendments get attached, everyone will walk away with a piece of the Flat little 20B pie. Work force intact, Commercial given it's leg up for the year, SDHLV fast tracked, flexible path implemented, and ATK get's it's pound of flesh.
Think of it this way this bill finally kills the unkillable Ares 1 :)
"The White House will announce their support of this bill tomorrow"
Bill Nelson speaks . . .
http://demradio.senate.gov/actualities/billnelson/billnelson100714.mp3
Listen to the mp3 link from demradio at senate.gov
Money quote:Quote"The White House will announce their support of this bill tomorrow"
Bill Nelson speaks . . .
http://demradio.senate.gov/actualities/billnelson/billnelson100714.mp3
Listen to the mp3 link from demradio at senate.gov
Money quote:Quote"The White House will announce their support of this bill tomorrow"
"......chanCe of Obama supporting it......."Politcally naive as usual. Obama is not interested. He wants NASA ethier A. Gone or B. Made into a slush fund for other things lik climate change.
It has always been that way, and I expect he may rubber stamp this cause he simply doesn't care that much. But he could also veto it knowing that doing so would probably lead to the inviability of SDHLV and a workforce collapse.......
He isn't stupid or misinformed, he is very smart and does get some good info. But he has A. bad advisors around and B. some very "polarized" opinions on how the world works.
If he cares enough that he really wants that funding for something else he will veto, otherwise he will stamp (quietly ofc).
Bill Nelson speaks . . .
http://demradio.senate.gov/actualities/billnelson/billnelson100714.mp3
Listen to the mp3 link from demradio at senate.gov
Money quote:Quote"The White House will announce their support of this bill tomorrow"
"......chanCe of Obama supporting it......."Politcally naive as usual. Obama is not interested. He wants NASA ethier A. Gone or B. Made into a slush fund for other things lik climate change.
It has always been that way, and I expect he may rubber stamp this cause he simply doesn't care that much. But he could also veto it knowing that doing so would probably lead to the inviability of SDHLV and a workforce collapse.......
He isn't stupid or misinformed, he is very smart and does get some good info. But he has A. bad advisors around and B. some very "polarized" opinions on how the world works.
If he cares enough that he really wants that funding for something else he will veto, otherwise he will stamp (quietly ofc).
Boxer is offering an amendment, mark my words, this bill has been pre approved by the executive. I have worked in politics so trust me I am not politically naive. When you see 1st rung Senators proposing amendments this early, this bill has made the rounds behind closed doors. This bill is likely headed in one fashion or the other to the executives desk.
One does not change direction for NASA without fan fair. Trust me, the bill as written by Nelson, with a few tweeks, is a bill all Senators and the Executive can walk away from with things to brag about. It's that way by design.
I know right? Its odd. Perhaps: Future BEO: Crew launch by EELV or other commercial provider (like spacex) to LEO. Stack components launched by SDHLV?Bill Nelson speaks . . .
http://demradio.senate.gov/actualities/billnelson/billnelson100714.mp3
Listen to the mp3 link from demradio at senate.gov
Money quote:Quote"The White House will announce their support of this bill tomorrow"
Extra Shuttle, accelerated Heavy Lift, Commercial Crew, and Research & Development mentioned, but not one word about Orion in this clip, which is interesting.
- Ed Kyle
To do so would be pretty embaressing for the WH because it would mean admitting a massive, very incompetent mistake on a large government program..........
"......chanCe of Obama supporting it......."I'm personally wondering if they're going to announce an attempt at increasing the top-line for NASA, perhaps to the level the Augustine Committee proposed. An increased top-line could potentially accommodate both the HLV folks and the White House. The White House wouldn't want the political cost of proposing an even larger budget increase for NASA in the current economy, but the members of the Commerce committee might try it. Of course, it'd then be interesting to see what would happen when it reached the Appropriations committee...
Senator Nelson, & Boxer both are close with the President, I seriously doubt Nelson would put his neck out, and Boxer would bother to amend if there wasn't some change of Obama supporting it. They don't legislate in a vacuum.
If Senator Boxer and Warner's amendments get attached, everyone will walk away with a piece of the Flat little 20B pie. Work force intact, Commercial given it's leg up for the year, SDHLV fast tracked, flexible path implemented, and ATK get's it's pound of flesh.
Think of it this way this bill finally kills the unkillable Ares 1 :)
Politcally naive as usual. Obama is not interested. He wants NASA ethier A. Gone or B. Made into a slush fund for other things lik climate change.
It has always been that way, and I expect he may rubber stamp this cause he simply doesn't care that much. But he could also veto it knowing that doing so would probably lead to the inviability of SDHLV and a workforce collapse.......
He isn't stupid or misinformed, he is very smart and does get some good info. But he has A. bad advisors around and B. some very "polarized" opinions on how the world works.
If he cares enough that he really wants that funding for something else he will veto, otherwise he will stamp (quietly ofc).
Senator Nelson Previews 2010 NASA Reauthorization Bill
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2010/074.html
Tread carefully things are changing minute by minute it seems.
Wrong. Where do you come up with this stuff? Your claims are either unsubstantiated or OBE.You are correct Jim. I am required to agree with everything you have to say.
Use of EELV for manned mission predates Constellation, they were to be used for OSP.
Manrating the EELV's is not a big deal, schedule or cost wise. It can be quickly, before any NASA development vehicle flies.
Also, your comment about Orion to Mars shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
Arguing the facts of EELV with Jim is like arguing the facts of STS with OV-106, or the facts of suborital with Jon Goff. Your welcome to do it, but you will look like a fool in the process.
Extra Shuttle, accelerated Heavy Lift, Commercial Crew, and Research & Development mentioned, but not one word about Orion in this clip, which is interesting.
Bill Nelson speaks . . .
http://demradio.senate.gov/actualities/billnelson/billnelson100714.mp3
Listen to the mp3 link from demradio at senate.gov
Money quote:Quote"The White House will announce their support of this bill tomorrow"
Wow thanks for posting.
Also explicitly mentions a Delta for crew. Wonder what the vehicle on board will be.
Senator Nelson Previews 2010 NASA Reauthorization Bill
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2010/074.html
What I would like to know is the relationship between the Nelson bill and the Hutchison bill thrown out here a few months ago.
WOW that's it then. The reports of a fatigued DNC and President are true. They're giving up battles the closer we get to big votes. They are very scared about losing seats.
Hope all the "budget to nowhere" naysayers are happy with the new mission objective. What do they plan on flying on this rocket again? Orion? To where? Apollo again? I recognize that. It was called Constellation in the early 21st century.
We've lost new technology, deep space missions, and maximum funding to close the gap, all in favor of... how did Nelson put it? "The much more expensive heavy lift rocket"
The President trades the future for votes. See you in 5 years when this latest toy rocket is canceled.
No, I take fy2011 as an attempt to right size NASA. Let’s face it the shuttle has the biggest work force of any rocket and keeping all these people employed is going to eat the budget. If spaceflight is advancing it should take fewer people to do the same amount of work. It is one of those sad facts in life. Heck I once worked at a dairy that produced ten times more than it did in the 70ies, yet employed less than half as many people.
I am no fan of shuttle derived. I might have been before cxp, but as the quote goes the shuttle’s parts are not Lego pieces and the flight rates they were talking about (1-2 a year) during cxp did not justify keeping it. I think shuttle C’s time has come and gone.
I think NASA is at a critical fork in the road. It can keeping doing things the same way it has been and hope for a budget increase(Which becomes less and less likely as the boomers start to drain social security). It can refocus itself for the 21st century by bring in new technologies and new approaches to the problem of space flight. If it chooses ye old HLV topped with disposable capsule, habitat, and lander ala Apollo it is going to eat its budget and become less and less relevant.
If it chooses not to use commercial in LEO it will never have the funds or political support for BEO.
If it employs new technology such as propellant depots, solar electric tugs and closed loop life support it can build Infrastructure in orbit which over time will reduce the cost of BEO flight. For instance if you tug you hab back into earth orbit after a NEO mission then you only need to resupply it (a role for commercial). If you dump it after each mission because using chemical rockets without a depot you can’t afford the mass to bring it back don’t be surprised if one day the budget is lowered to the point where you can’t afford to buy a new hab. By the way that was how Apollo was ended. Congress refused to purchase a second round of upgraded Saturn V’s in 1968, leaving NASA as a space program that was running out of rockets before the 1st moon landing had taken place.
Tread carefully things are changing minute by minute it seems.Not that quickly, but I agree on the point: it's not over yet. An authorization bill in this situation might carry a little more weight, but as has been noted here ad nauseum, it doesn't fund the programs. If this were enacted into law, the funding still would have to be passed for it and then the discussion will move back over to continuing resolutions and appropriations bills. And that could have different meanings for different programs (existing and proposed).
This morning's blog post by Eric Berger has some additional discussion on what may happen to the bill after it clears the committee:Here's this morning's post, with the same changed outlook being reported elsewhere:
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2010/07/does_the_senate_plan_for_nasas_budget_have_legs.htmlQuoteAs I understand that the President does not support the Senate bill, it seems likely that unanimous consent will not be obtained from the Senate. Therefore the bill must be scheduled for the debate by the Senate Majority leader. That's Harry Reid, who is unlikely to schedule legislation for debate that the President does not like.
"We're in a pretty tough spot," one Senate staffer admitted to me Tuesday.
Yesterday when I spoke with a Congressional source there was a sense that the White House would probably oppose the bill because of its substantial differences. Yet this evening there's optimism from the Senate bill's proponents that they've given the White House enough carrots that it may accept the bill and choose its battles elsewhere.
Boxer is offering an amendment, mark my words, this bill has been pre approved by the executive. I have worked in politics so trust me I am not politically naive. When you see 1st rung Senators proposing amendments this early, this bill has made the rounds behind closed doors. This bill is likely headed in one fashion or the other to the executives desk.
One does not change direction for NASA without fan fair. Trust me, the bill as written by Nelson, with a few tweeks, is a bill all Senators and the Executive can walk away from with things to brag about. It's that way by design.
Boxer is offering an amendment, mark my words, this bill has been pre approved by the executive. I have worked in politics so trust me I am not politically naive. When you see 1st rung Senators proposing amendments this early, this bill has made the rounds behind closed doors. This bill is likely headed in one fashion or the other to the executives desk.So you belive Boxer's amendment will get approved in the final version? What about Warner's that increases funds to commercial crew at the expense of the HLV?
One does not change direction for NASA without fan fair. Trust me, the bill as written by Nelson, with a few tweeks, is a bill all Senators and the Executive can walk away from with things to brag about. It's that way by design.
I'm personally wondering if they're going to announce an attempt at increasing the top-line for NASA, perhaps to the level the Augustine Committee proposed. An increased top-line could potentially accommodate both the HLV folks and the White House. The White House wouldn't want the political cost of proposing an even larger budget increase for NASA in the current economy, but the members of the Commerce committee might try it. Of course, it'd then be interesting to see what would happen when it reached the Appropriations committee...
Senator Nelson, & Boxer both are close with the President, I seriously doubt Nelson would put his neck out, and Boxer would bother to amend if there wasn't some change of Obama supporting it. They don't legislate in a vacuum.
If Senator Boxer and Warner's amendments get attached, everyone will walk away with a piece of the Flat little 20B pie. Work force intact, Commercial given it's leg up for the year, SDHLV fast tracked, flexible path implemented, and ATK get's it's pound of flesh.
Think of it this way this bill finally kills the unkillable Ares 1 :)
Senator Nelson Previews 2010 NASA Reauthorization Bill
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2010/074.html
What I would like to know is the relationship between the Nelson bill and the Hutchison bill thrown out here a few months ago.
Very good question...take a look at them side-by-side with respect to the human spaceflight portions...remember, the Hutchison bill (S. 3068) was focused on just the Human Spaceflight portions of NASA Authorization; this is a full authorization bill, so includes all of NASA, from a policy perspective. At the time she introduced her bill, it was noted that it could reflect a potential consensus direction that could form the core of a full NASA authorization bill.
I for one would have preferred they just keep the E.T. 8.4 meter tooling and go for Hydrocarbon Boosters instead of Solids.
Boxer is proposing an amendement? What is the amendement?
Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Bill Nelson are apparently hosting a press conference discussing a "major breakthrough" on the authorization bill at 11:45am EST Thursday (tomorrow). The Commerce Committee will be meeting to mark up the bill prior to this.The Committee Executive Session (http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=7457bd6b-1721-4c17-994c-77595f3099ae&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=7&YearDisplay=2010) is scheduled for 10 am EDT.
Probably not, especially if the amendments have yet to be voted on by the committee. The next version we see is likely going to be whatever comes out of committee. Not sure if the Washington media will publish first, but we'll see it in Thomas when it gets to the floor.Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Bill Nelson are apparently hosting a press conference discussing a "major breakthrough" on the authorization bill at 11:45am EST Thursday (tomorrow). The Commerce Committee will be meeting to mark up the bill prior to this.The Committee Executive Session (http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=7457bd6b-1721-4c17-994c-77595f3099ae&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=7&YearDisplay=2010) is scheduled for 10 am EDT.
Will the bill be posted at 10AM also?
Is there going to be some sort of webcast for this presser?Not sure, but a webcast just went up for the Executive Session:
Senator Nelson Previews 2010 NASA Reauthorization Bill
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2010/074.html
What I would like to know is the relationship between the Nelson bill and the Hutchison bill thrown out here a few months ago.
Very good question...take a look at them side-by-side with respect to the human spaceflight portions...remember, the Hutchison bill (S. 3068) was focused on just the Human Spaceflight portions of NASA Authorization; this is a full authorization bill, so includes all of NASA, from a policy perspective. At the time she introduced her bill, it was noted that it could reflect a potential consensus direction that could form the core of a full NASA authorization bill.
Extra Shuttle, accelerated Heavy Lift, Commercial Crew, and Research & Development mentioned, but not one word about Orion in this clip, which is interesting.
The draft bill only mentioned a 'Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle' and didn't mention Orion by name. It is possible that, after discussions with Lockheed about the practicality of restoring capabilities, Orion is being canned with Ares-I in favour of a more capable vehicle that is optimised for BEO. We will have to see.
Please correct the chain of events but what is the best guess as to when the contractors may get the go ahead to start working on the heavy lift vehicle?51D Mascot can provide something definitive, but I don't believe the "authority to proceed" would come until/unless funds are appropriated.
I thought I heard the chairman say that the mention of Sen Mculsky (sp) who chairs the appropriations committee, would be getting this bill tomorrow, and is some in favour of it; as well, there was much mention of WH involvement in coming to this compromise;Probably depends a great deal on how much of a 'done deal' getting a corresponding appropriations bill passed through both houses is. There's still a lot of talk about not being able to get (m)any of those passed and having to pass a series of continuing resolutions.
am I reading too much into this, if I suggest that this is almost a done deal???
I thought I heard the chairman say that the mention of Sen Mculsky (sp) who chairs the appropriations committee, would be getting this bill tomorrow, and is some in favour of it; as well, there was much mention of WH involvement in coming to this compromise;Probably depends a great deal on how much of a 'done deal' getting a corresponding appropriations bill passed through both houses is. There's still a lot of talk about not being able to get (m)any of those passed and having to pass a series of continuing resolutions.
am I reading too much into this, if I suggest that this is almost a done deal???
Based on what I've seen in the past 20-25 years, I'm going to wait to count the proverbial chickens. :)I thought I heard the chairman say that the mention of Sen Mculsky (sp) who chairs the appropriations committee, would be getting this bill tomorrow, and is some in favour of it; as well, there was much mention of WH involvement in coming to this compromise;Probably depends a great deal on how much of a 'done deal' getting a corresponding appropriations bill passed through both houses is. There's still a lot of talk about not being able to get (m)any of those passed and having to pass a series of continuing resolutions.
am I reading too much into this, if I suggest that this is almost a done deal???
well, to quote my 19th century Gramma,
It's and ill wind that blows nobody some good, and Live in hopes, die in despair ;)
Cheers
I thought I heard the chairman say that the mention of Sen Mculsky (sp) who chairs the appropriations committee, would be getting this bill tomorrow, and is some in favour of it; as well, there was much mention of WH involvement in coming to this compromise;Probably depends a great deal on how much of a 'done deal' getting a corresponding appropriations bill passed through both houses is. There's still a lot of talk about not being able to get (m)any of those passed and having to pass a series of continuing resolutions.
am I reading too much into this, if I suggest that this is almost a done deal???
This may become the $64k question for 51D Mascot, although I think the hypothetical makes more sense with an enacted 2010 re-authorization for NASA. It's possible as you say, but if Congress can't agree on that language within an authorization, members may want to 'punt' on that in the funding bill, too.I thought I heard the chairman say that the mention of Sen Mculsky (sp) who chairs the appropriations committee, would be getting this bill tomorrow, and is some in favour of it; as well, there was much mention of WH involvement in coming to this compromise;Probably depends a great deal on how much of a 'done deal' getting a corresponding appropriations bill passed through both houses is. There's still a lot of talk about not being able to get (m)any of those passed and having to pass a series of continuing resolutions.
am I reading too much into this, if I suggest that this is almost a done deal???
You seem to know more than I do on this but I believe that even a continuing resolution can make a reference to the 2010 NASA Authorization bill (even if it isn't passed). I believe that this was what was done a couple of years ago. In other words, the level of spending would be frozen to FY2010 level but it would be allocated with the new objectives.
Probably not, especially if the amendments have yet to be voted on by the committee. The next version we see is likely going to be whatever comes out of committee. Not sure if the Washington media will publish first, but we'll see it in Thomas when it gets to the floor.Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Bill Nelson are apparently hosting a press conference discussing a "major breakthrough" on the authorization bill at 11:45am EST Thursday (tomorrow). The Commerce Committee will be meeting to mark up the bill prior to this.The Committee Executive Session (http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=7457bd6b-1721-4c17-994c-77595f3099ae&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=7&YearDisplay=2010) is scheduled for 10 am EDT.
Will the bill be posted at 10AM also?
Senator Nelson Previews 2010 NASA Reauthorization Bill
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2010/074.html
What I would like to know is the relationship between the Nelson bill and the Hutchison bill thrown out here a few months ago.
Very good question...take a look at them side-by-side with respect to the human spaceflight portions...remember, the Hutchison bill (S. 3068) was focused on just the Human Spaceflight portions of NASA Authorization; this is a full authorization bill, so includes all of NASA, from a policy perspective. At the time she introduced her bill, it was noted that it could reflect a potential consensus direction that could form the core of a full NASA authorization bill.
If this authorization is agreed too with possible amendments what is the chain of events that must follow for contractors to actually get the funds to start building?
Is it something like this:
1) Goes to the appropriations committee to get approved
2) Into the full Senate budget
3) Reconcile full Senate budget with House which leads to
4) Most likely a continuing resolution using the 2010 budget
5) Finally 2011 budget voted on
6) On the President’s for signing
Please correct the chain of events but what is the best guess as to when the contractors may get the go ahead to start working on the heavy lift vehicle?
(Been fairly busy at work recently)
If this authorization is agreed too with possible amendments what is the chain of events that must follow for contractors to actually get the funds to start building?
Is it something like this:
1) Goes to the appropriations committee to get approved
2) Into the full Senate budget
3) Reconcile full Senate budget with House which leads to
4) Most likely a continuing resolution using the 2010 budget
5) Finally 2011 budget voted on
6) On the President’s for signing
Please correct the chain of events but what is the best guess as to when the contractors may get the go ahead to start working on the heavy lift vehicle?
Well, the process doesn't quite work in that sort of sequence, per se, and it's not a simple thing to describe--let me just promise to get back with a more detailed description when I get some rest! (Been fairly busy at work recently)..Or someone else can jump in and offer a response.
Thanks, that was very clear. But I think that you made a mistake explaining the pocket veto. If the President doesn't sign a bill within 10 days (i.e. he keeps his pen in his pocket), the bill is then considered to have been vetoed.
Thanks, that was very clear. But I think that you made a mistake explaining the pocket veto. If the President doesn't sign a bill within 10 days (i.e. he keeps his pen in his pocket), the bill is then considered to have been vetoed.
Thanks, that was very clear. But I think that you made a mistake explaining the pocket veto. If the President doesn't sign a bill within 10 days (i.e. he keeps his pen in his pocket), the bill is then considered to have been vetoed.
As mentioned above, the pocket veto only works if within 10 days of recess. See U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 7.
So under this new policy, could one Shuttle Orbiter be kept on semi-retirement standby as a LON for any ISS emergencies while the SD-HLV is being built ?
Not much has changed -- still feasible technically, still hard to do politically.So under this new policy, could one Shuttle Orbiter be kept on semi-retirement standby as a LON for any ISS emergencies while the SD-HLV is being built ?
The idea while at first glance seems good, would actually be too costly: the fixed costs of the entire Shuttle infrastructure -- vehicle, spares, processing tools, machinery and personnel etc are expensive whether you fly one mission per year or six -- six missions per year for instance is only 'slightly' more expensive than flying three.
Not much has changed -- still feasible technically, still hard to do politically.So under this new policy, could one Shuttle Orbiter be kept on semi-retirement standby as a LON for any ISS emergencies while the SD-HLV is being built ?
The idea while at first glance seems good, would actually be too costly: the fixed costs of the entire Shuttle infrastructure -- vehicle, spares, processing tools, machinery and personnel etc are expensive whether you fly one mission per year or six -- six missions per year for instance is only 'slightly' more expensive than flying three.
It would cost in the neighborhood of $2 billion per year (and there are estimates it would cost more than that). One of the other signals in the committee's bill is that NASA's top line would not increase significantly in the next three fiscal years; the question would remain where within NASA's top line would that money come from.
The bill suggests that Congress could act again before the additional Shuttle flight it also mandates, but it wouldn't change the price tag much.
Would not keeping all the Shuttle stack infrastructure in preparation forNo not even close, the things that MATTBLAK enumerated in his post really do have to be maintained at a flight-readiness level -- otherwise, you incur significant additional costs to bring the infrastructure back to certification. There are maintenance requirements for orbiter flight-hardware based on time, not just cycles -- if you let them sit long enough, they fall out of flight-readiness. Same for orbiter-specific facilities. And there are requirements for personnel to maintain their flight-readiness certifications.
the SD-HLV account for a lot of the cost ? Are we not just talking about maintaining a ready to go Orbiter in the VAB ?
Not much has changed -- still feasible technically, still hard to do politically.So under this new policy, could one Shuttle Orbiter be kept on semi-retirement standby as a LON for any ISS emergencies while the SD-HLV is being built ?
The idea while at first glance seems good, would actually be too costly: the fixed costs of the entire Shuttle infrastructure -- vehicle, spares, processing tools, machinery and personnel etc are expensive whether you fly one mission per year or six -- six missions per year for instance is only 'slightly' more expensive than flying three.
It would cost in the neighborhood of $2 billion per year (and there are estimates it would cost more than that). One of the other signals in the committee's bill is that NASA's top line would not increase significantly in the next three fiscal years; the question would remain where within NASA's top line would that money come from.
The bill suggests that Congress could act again before the additional Shuttle flight it also mandates, but it wouldn't change the price tag much.
Would not keeping all the Shuttle stack infrastructure in preparation for the SD-HLV account for a lot of the cost ? Are we not just talking about maintaining a ready to go Orbiter in the VAB ?
it would need to be an OPF [...] it would be expensive, and really only practical if the SD-HLV is constrained to be sidemount.
Do no assembly work at KSC, engines and thrust structure need to come on the core integrated and tested.
Do no assembly work at KSC, engines and thrust structure need to come on the core integrated and tested.
IIUC, that's not how engines are assembled to Shuttle (though for obvious reasons in this case).
Could you expand why this method is better for SDHLV?
Thanks, Martin
Do no assembly work at KSC, engines and thrust structure need to come on the core integrated and tested.
IIUC, that's not how engines are assembled to Shuttle (though for obvious reasons in this case).
Could you expand why this method is better for SDHLV?
Thanks, Martin
Martin
For Shuttle, the SSME's are reusable and are removed, refurbished and reinstalled at KSC. For the SLS, like the Saturn-V, the engines will be expendable. They will be tested and installed on the core at MAF, just like the F1 was for Saturn, and the completed core shipped to KSC.
I am excited about the introduction of the HLV in 2011. It is not clear to me is what about Orion. Will it stay as Obama proposed (CRV) or will it eventually become a full-up craft?
I am excited about the introduction of the HLV in 2011. It is not clear to me is what about Orion. Will it stay as Obama proposed (CRV) or will it eventually become a full-up craft?
I don't believe that the CRV version will now be built. Only the full-scale BEO vehicle.
I am excited about the introduction of the HLV in 2011. It is not clear to me is what about Orion. Will it stay as Obama proposed (CRV) or will it eventually become a full-up craft?
I don't believe that the CRV version will now be built. Only the full-scale BEO vehicle.
Its actually better than that. More likley than not, the Ares 1 CXP version will be chucked. Then we can go back to the Pre Zero Base Vehicle version.
Note: The orginal orion held more people, was larger, and was far more capable than the CXP version, because of Ares 1 preformance shortfalls, the CXP version was far less capable than the orginal.
So I am happy if they go back to the orginal now that preformance shortfall is no longer an issue (thanks again DIRECT :D ) 8)
I am excited about the introduction of the HLV in 2011. It is not clear to me is what about Orion. Will it stay as Obama proposed (CRV) or will it eventually become a full-up craft?
I don't believe that the CRV version will now be built. Only the full-scale BEO vehicle.
Its actually better than that. More likley than not, the Ares 1 CXP version will be chucked. Then we can go back to the Pre Zero Base Vehicle version.
Note: The orginal orion held more people, was larger, and was far more capable than the CXP version, because of Ares 1 preformance shortfalls, the CXP version was far less capable than the orginal.
So I am happy if they go back to the orginal now that preformance shortfall is no longer an issue (thanks again DIRECT :D ) 8)
1. So those tests would include the ones (like the LPOTP torque checks (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/discoverys-ssmes-removed-thursday-lpotp-issue/)), which detected the SSME issue on STS-133 ?
2. I'm somewhat surprised that the SSME wouldn't undergo further checks after it's journey from MAF. Would that mean if a fault was found the core would need to return to MAF to have the engine swapped out?
Hurray, they can put the toilet back in!
Hurray, they can put the toilet back in!
Orion's waste management system was never removed from Lockheed Martin's baseline design. Myth busted. http://bit.ly/dy9gUt
Hopefully the one they put on the Orion works better than the crapper on the ISS. 8)Hurray, they can put the toilet back in!
Orion's waste management system was never removed from Lockheed Martin's baseline design. Myth busted. http://bit.ly/dy9gUt
Is the "crapper" on ISS bad? I was under the impression that it was preferable to the one on the shuttle. But I could be wrong.
I am excited about the introduction of the HLV in 2011. It is not clear to me is what about Orion. Will it stay as Obama proposed (CRV) or will it eventually become a full-up craft?
I don't believe that the CRV version will now be built. Only the full-scale BEO vehicle.
Its actually better than that. More likley than not, the Ares 1 CXP version will be chucked. Then we can go back to the Pre Zero Base Vehicle version.
Note: The orginal orion held more people, was larger, and was far more capable than the CXP version, because of Ares 1 preformance shortfalls, the CXP version was far less capable than the orginal.
So I am happy if they go back to the orginal now that preformance shortfall is no longer an issue (thanks again DIRECT :D ) 8)
1. So those tests would include the ones (like the LPOTP torque checks (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/discoverys-ssmes-removed-thursday-lpotp-issue/)), which detected the SSME issue on STS-133 ?
2. I'm somewhat surprised that the SSME wouldn't undergo further checks after it's journey from MAF. Would that mean if a fault was found the core would need to return to MAF to have the engine swapped out?
Think ELV and not shuttle
1. No, the RS-25 shouldn't require those.
2. Just like the Saturn V, contingency engine replacement will available at KSC
Has anyone told the Navy that they are supposed to recover these capsules under the current version (insert sarcasm)?
Hurray, they can put the toilet back in!
Orion's waste management system was never removed from Lockheed Martin's baseline design. Myth busted. http://bit.ly/dy9gUt
GAO's estimate was $7.2 bn to fund a Jupiter-130 class SDLV to Full Operational Capability (FOC) over 5 years -- and that figure includes a 40% cost-overrun estimate.
Space X, National Space Society & The Mars Society Support Senate NASA Compromise Funding Bill http://blog.nss.org/?p=1896 http://www.nss.org/
http://www.marssociety.org/portal/mars-society-cheers-senate-committee-approval-of-hlv-funding/