NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

General Discussion => Space Policy Discussion => Topic started by: phantomdj on 07/02/2010 04:34 pm

Title: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: phantomdj on 07/02/2010 04:34 pm
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/
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: daj24 on 07/02/2010 04:37 pm
Well, this should get interesting.  Now all they need to do is find some money.  I hope that they can!
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: kraisee on 07/02/2010 04:38 pm
We aren't at the "too late" point yet.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: HarryM on 07/02/2010 04:43 pm
I like much better than the "study until 2015, when the STS components/tools have already been scrapped" plan. I don't think any game changing lift tech is going to materialize between now and 2015.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: veedriver22 on 07/02/2010 05:01 pm
 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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: psloss on 07/02/2010 05:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/02/2010 05:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/02/2010 07:13 pm
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/


Welcome back DIRECT :) :)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/02/2010 07:14 pm
We aren't at the "too late" point yet.

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.
But ATK changed their minds and STS is extended to Feb. 2011, possible longer..............
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Mark S on 07/02/2010 07:47 pm
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...   ;)

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!

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.

Heavy-lift with kerosene? Been there, done that.

Come on, Congress, get off the pot!  Let's get moving already, the past 18 months have been a total waste of time.

Mark S.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/02/2010 07:52 pm
*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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Mark S on 07/02/2010 08:01 pm
*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?

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: phantomdj on 07/02/2010 08:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: strangequark on 07/02/2010 08:08 pm
Unlike X-33 it could produce results though, since it's just kerolox engine development, no fancy new TPS, aerospike engines and such.

The fancy new TPS and aerospike engines were the parts that worked...
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/02/2010 08:12 pm
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 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;
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/02/2010 08:30 pm
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.

OK, but not every manned mission is BEO and that's why I was confused by the 15 year time frame. Anyone have an estimate on how much the HSF gap could be shortened by Nelson's SDHLV? If I'm not mistaken the Direct team claims the HSF gap could be reduced to 3 years.

The fancy new TPS and aerospike engines were the parts that worked...

I thought the aeorospike had base heating issues? My point was that there were multiple advanced technologies being developed all at once for the X-33 vehicle vs. just a kerolox engine as part of this "game changing" HLV propulsion R&D. As I said, I think this is just to buy time to end shuttle. Anyway, X-33 is OT.

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;

Am I the only one who regards a potential commercial crew capability as domestic HSF? Or are we talking strictly BEO HSF here?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/02/2010 09:31 pm
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?

You may want to read through at least the basics of the recent HLV BAA. It's very different from what you think it is.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/02/2010 09:33 pm
I wonder what the reactions would be if a nationwide poll were done on this proposal.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: M_Puckett on 07/02/2010 10:51 pm
What reactions?

Most people don't have a clue about the finer points of space policy.

It is like tap water.  They don't know how the water treatment plant and distribution system work, they just know when the water stops flowing out of the tap, someting is wrong.

They are concerned with the output, not the process.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Lars_J on 07/02/2010 11:58 pm
I'm still unsure what exactly this heavy-lift proposed rocket would be lifting. What payloads?

But this is more about maintaining a 'program' than actually doing something useful. These congress-critters don't care about a results, all they want is an on-going program that can entrench their political support base.

At least that's the way it seems.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/03/2010 12:27 am
We aren't at the "too late" point yet.

But the edge of the cliff is swiftly approaching and we have yet to begin turning in a different direction.
They were still talking of restarting Saturn by the time I was watching drop tests of Shuttle.

And yes, we are going in a different direction - thank god.
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.

I think all along the senators can't press the big dumb "Ares I or bust" button and make the problem go away e.g. not do their jobs. They just don't want to jump in and mix things up a bit.

They will have to save certain key items for constituencies and punt on others.

I don't think they've given up on that ... just that its gotten more time consuming for them, for the trouble that its worth. Everyone here thinks space is the main thing on the mind ... no it isn't by a long shot for these reps/senators.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: rjholling on 07/03/2010 01:09 am
Splended if this is true.  All that is left now is for Mrs. Garver to tender her resignation.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/03/2010 01:20 am
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 ...

Seems like I'll miss it for longer ...  ;D
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/03/2010 01:52 am
What's the mission for this HLV?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: alexw on 07/03/2010 02:29 am
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!

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.
     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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/03/2010 02:36 am
What's the mission for this HLV?

To save jobs?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Mark S on 07/03/2010 02:43 am
     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

We were able to build the ISS and fly the Shuttle for the past ten years on the current budget (actually less).  So it stands to reason that we certainly can develop a true SDLV, start flying it, and put up some interesting payloads too, in the same budgetary neighborhood.

The trick is to come up with an architecture that is both capable and affordable, ala DIRECT, not a hobbled boondoggle like Ares I/V.

And if some of the doubting Thomas's on this board can't think of any useful payloads to launch on an HLV, then they are suffering from a distinct lack of imagination and ambition.

Mark S.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: rjholling on 07/03/2010 03:06 am
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!

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.
     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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: vt_hokie on 07/03/2010 03:20 am

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!
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/03/2010 03:40 am

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!

Totally agree...
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: 2552 on 07/03/2010 03:45 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: vt_hokie on 07/03/2010 03:47 am

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.

And given NASA's record on meeting long term schedule targets, you can safely say that means more like 2050!  ;)  When was the space station originally supposed to be completed, mid to late 1990's? 

Even early to mid 2020's is too long from now.  This is truly shaping up to be a lost decade. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: sdsds on 07/03/2010 06:02 am
What's the mission for this HLV?

I think we can expect the first HLV payload will launch without a crew and will be destined for LEO.  A propellant depot used in conjunction with flagship technology demonstration missions would be a good choice.  The second vehicle would probably also launch without a crew and it would be great if it could be sent to a BLEO destination like an Earth-Moon Lagrange point.  A small "safe have" station would be a good choice.  Assuming those first vehicles flew well enough to give good confidence, the third could be used for a crew launch.  If the crew were visiting an easy to reach orbit like ISS (hah!) they could bring with them a relatively large new module, or an extensive set of ORUs.  Personally I would hope they could bring an airlock appropriately equipped to try out new EVA suits.  A fourth vehicle could take a crew to the EML safe haven, possibly bringing it a module that would make it more amenable to non-emergency crew habitation.  All of those would be precursors that reduce the risk of the eventual NEO visit mission, which could take two or three HLV launches to assemble in LEO.

That number of vehicles helps amortize the cost of developing the system, and all of those vehicles would be in keeping with the direction in which the President has asked NASA to proceed.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/03/2010 06:26 am
You know what I'd like to see? Money from Congress for actual payloads. With that money in hand, you can then argue about what kind of launch vehicle.

Truth is we don't need a new launch vehicle (or a new rebuilding of one with available pieces), and if we did need one, we don't have the money for one along with the payloads to make it worthwhile. Shuttle with ISS hardly disproves this, since it is reusable and only can loft EELV-sized chunks and almost half the time we launched it, we launched someone else's payload (Kibo, etc).

The launch costs are just a fraction of the cost of a payload. Or at least they ought to be!
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/03/2010 06:32 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: sdsds on 07/03/2010 06:40 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: simonth on 07/03/2010 06:42 am
What's the mission for this HLV?

There is no mission. There wouldn't be any money for any payloads if the money goes to development and operations of the HLV (surprise!...). They will end up inventing some mission, probably 1-2 flights per year on a "test flight basis" or to the ISS.

But we won't get that HLV anyway, I am pretty sure.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/03/2010 01:07 pm
What's the mission for this HLV?

Initially, ISS logistics and crew rotation to suppliment commercial cargo and crew.

However, this will simply be a way to test the core (LEO-range only) element of the HLV whilst simultaneousy doing some useful functions.  After the development of the upper stage, R&D will move to the crew hab module whilst early test flights to LLO occur (possibly using recycled Orions bolted onto the US as short-term orbital modules).

Depending on time scales, it is possible that you could shave five years off of the President's goal of a BEO mission with significant scientific content rather than being mostly an engineering test (does the spacecraft, especially its crew support systems, work reliably BEO?).

Once again, I point to the Earth co-orbital NEOs, the so-called "new moons".  They are going to be there for several decades before their orbits move out of phase with Earth's and they drift further away.  Certainly they would be conveniently placed for a prolonged period, which would allow multiple visits for a thorough survey.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/03/2010 01:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/03/2010 03:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/03/2010 04:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/03/2010 04:44 pm
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.

I did or Jim did? Greason uses that exact "nice to have, not need" line in the talk.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/03/2010 04:51 pm
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.

I did or Jim did? Greason uses that exact "nice to have, not need" line in the talk.
Oh, come on. Did you actually watch it? Watch it again. He never implied there was any sort of payload for it.

He said that we don't have money. A clean-sheet HLV, 40 tons to LEO or otherwise, doesn't help this.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/03/2010 05:02 pm
He said that we don't have money. A clean-sheet HLV, 40 tons to LEO or otherwise, doesn't help this.

My reference to clean sheet wasn't meant to say that if we decided to built a 40mT to LEO launcher, we would start all over again. Greason mentions that it would be far better to use Atlas or Delta, though he was speaking in terms of Ares 1 when he mentioned that. I agree with that.

My clean sheet reference was that if you were to start all over again, two solids boosting tanks of LH2/LOX with expensive throw-away engines is probably something you wouldn't come up with. That's all.

The Air Force sees the day that their EELVs go away (2025) because they feel, that given the time, there's a better solution with RLVs. Doesn't it make sense to dovetail with their work?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: kraisee on 07/03/2010 05:26 pm
FY2010's enacted budget saw Appropriations fund Constellation Systems to the tune of about $3.5 billion and Shuttle to another $3.2 billion.

Both of those budget line items are effectively "in play" right now for FY2011.   There is therefore, roughly $6.5 billion worth of annual budget which is being negotiated (fought over?).

And I'm not even including the President's proposed $6 billion plus-up over 5 years yet either.   That's extra.

To think that isn't sufficient to pay for an SDLV/Orion *AND* still fund the President's new projects to very healthy levels is just crazy talk.   That opinion does not hold water.

Ross.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/03/2010 05:27 pm
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.

I imagine the concept of building a Saturn class rocket out of Shuttle parts would be appealing to most people. Slogan could be: Reuse dont rebuild. Just like recycling :)

Perhaps we should conduct our own poll on the site...... I will contact Chris ;)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/03/2010 05:30 pm
FY2010's enacted budget saw Appropriations fund Constellation Systems to the tune of about $3.5 billion and Shuttle to another $3.2 billion.

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.
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: kraisee on 07/03/2010 05:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/03/2010 05:40 pm
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.
:D :D Glad to hear it.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/03/2010 05:43 pm
Splended if this is true.  All that is left now is for Mrs. Garver to tender her resignation.
If only......
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/03/2010 05:45 pm
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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: SpacexULA on 07/03/2010 06:21 pm
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

Developing payloads and launchers in parallel requires a fictitiously high budget.  So if we green light HLV today, we can't   afford to develop payload at all till HLV comes online.  Then when we DO develop payloads, we will have to support a minimum HLV launch rate, support ISS, & develop the payloads.

Either way your right "no one on this planet has a clue when BEO would happen".  NASA has the money to develop payloads or launchers, not both.

Good thing about shrinking budgets with payloads is if the budget gets shrunk you can just put it in storage and pull it back out when you have funding, or sell it if it never gets funding (See Phoenix lander/Transhab)   De fund a launcher development program and by the time funding is restored the tooling has to be completely rethought.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: alexw on 07/03/2010 08:49 pm
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.
      $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?
      -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: phantomdj on 07/04/2010 03:24 am
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.

Yes but do the budget boys and appropriations committee in congress know this and are they willing to step up?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: RyanC on 07/04/2010 03:33 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: MATTBLAK on 07/04/2010 06:00 am
Splended if this is true.  All that is left now is for Mrs. Garver to tender her resignation.
If only......

I can tell you that there are more than a few members of Congress who will ensure, beyond a Shadow of a Doubt, that Lori Garver will NEVER serve as Chief Administrator of NASA, as long as they draw breath. And there are NASA personnel who would rather resign than ever serve under her as Chief. The above may be a bold statement for me to make and I don't mean to digress or go off on a tangent, but my modest sources indicate this to be so.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Blackout on 07/04/2010 08:44 am
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.

I believe that with a SDHLV and a continuation of Orion that there won't be any termination payouts.  Just changes to the contracts.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: trout007 on 07/04/2010 12:52 pm
I've been thinking about this since Constellation started. Is NASA going to build launchers or spaceships? If we are supposed to be exploring I think NASA should get out of the launcher game and focus on spaceships. This means just go with whatever launchers are available and figure out how to use them. With the limited HSF budget we can't afford to build an HLV and maintain it while only flying it 2 times a year.

If we use existing sized medium launchers not only do we have the 2 DOD launchers but Space X is getting there. The Russians have a few great ones, the Europeans have a great one, the Japanese have one, the Chinese have one. If we are going international which I think is a good idea than what NASA and the other countries should be working on is common propellants, interfaces, ect for a BEO architecture. The EELV fuel depot study was a great start. You get the benefit of using all existing launchers and help them get better by launching more often. Also when DOD decides to spend some of it's unholy large budget to build new RLV's NASA can just go along for free. Plus NASA would never have to pay for maintaining pads and vehicles again. This would free up enough money to actually start designing and building spaceships today.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: khallow on 07/04/2010 01:15 pm
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.

It's worth noting here that propellant at EML1 would probably be a whole lot more valuable than propellant on Earth. If Robotbeat had said that the launch costs ought to be a fraction of the value delivered (instead of cost) by a payload, then I think he'd be correct.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: blasphemer on 07/04/2010 01:53 pm
"What is the payload/mission for this HLV?"

Why should we be concerned by payloads for a HLV now? We need a heavy lifter that has to be capable of lifting various payloads, from propellant depots through space ships to ISS modules and cargo, and do it for a few decades. We cannot afford to design a launch vehicle for every payload. It is economicaly much more logical and practical to design our payloads for a versatile launch vehicle. The new NASA plan is called a flexible path, and I believe that should include flexible launch vehicle as its foundation. First things first.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: trout007 on 07/04/2010 02:08 pm
"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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/04/2010 02:37 pm
"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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: SpacexULA on 07/04/2010 03:17 pm
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/04/2010 03:24 pm
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?
I don't have the figures, but I have heard yes, it could meet their launch cost per kg.

Do not forget, a lot of the high static cost is the orbiter itself, which is removed in this program. 

But we're veering off-topic.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/04/2010 04:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: trout007 on 07/04/2010 04:45 pm
"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 have no problem with that. The shuttles are up for bid anyway. If someone thinks they can make a profit using it so be it. But they would have to cover all of the maintenance costs of the facilities. That is going to be expensive.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/04/2010 04:57 pm
The shuttles are up for bid anyway.

no, they are not.  they still be NASA's/Smithsonian's.  The "bid" is for the right to display them, not use them.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/04/2010 08:34 pm
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. Politically it would solve lots of problems, save a lot of jobs, preserve the Shuttle stack and allow the HLV decision to be postponed, but if no one is willing to step up to the plate, it won't happen.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jorge on 07/04/2010 09:15 pm
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.

That is one (biased) way to look at it, yes.

The other way to look at it is that the people who have the most experience with the system and are most familiar with both its benefits and flaws don't believe there's a business case to take it private.

This is not a decision USA could make on its own. It is a joint venture of Boeing and L-M and exists solely to generate profit for its parent companies. It does not have the authority nor the independent capital-raising capability to make the large investments that would be needed up-front, and it is unlikely that Boeing or L-M would allow them unless the venture would become profitable almost immediately.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Danderman on 07/05/2010 01:48 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/05/2010 06:19 am

...
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.
Correct as usual.

But legislation can lighten this burden - as long as you don't stupidly fill the gulf with billions of barrels of oil because one tries to save a buck on deep sea oil well casings ... :)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/05/2010 06:20 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/05/2010 02:37 pm
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.

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.
  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=120
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/05/2010 02:51 pm
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.

The appropriations will likely be done based on what has been authorized. According to Nelson, appropriators and authorizers agree that work HLV should start now and not in 2015. Bolden has actually backed away from the 2015 date saying that it will be no later than 2015 but it could start before that time. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/05/2010 06:09 pm
"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.

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: jml on 07/05/2010 07:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Spacetime on 07/05/2010 08:09 pm
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...
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/05/2010 08:16 pm
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.

     

   

 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: sdsds on 07/05/2010 08:31 pm
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: trout007 on 07/05/2010 08:46 pm
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.
 

This human rated thing is a bit funny. It looks good on paper but then there is flying. I've been designing (not rockets) for years. My failures are almost never from a mistaken calculation where I didn't apply the correct Factor of Safety. It is always something we didn't realize we needed to calculate. Because you can't analyse everything. Engineering is based on good enough. I'd rather fly on something that has a flight record and might not be "human rated" than something that is designed to be human rated and no flight record.

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/05/2010 08:50 pm

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: jml on 07/05/2010 09:34 pm
Oh dear.

I'm sure someone will be along to set you right in a moment or two, but there are no trajectory issues with either EELV, (the trajectory these vehicles fly for maximum GEO payload would not be the trajectory flown for a HSF mission - that's a simple change to guidance system paramters that the ULA folks have already figured out).  This trajectory myth was started by NASA folks seeking to justify designing a new EELV-class vehicle at MSFC when two similar vehicles already existed. I don't know how this myth still persists even now.

ULA indicates that the few things that need to be done for human rating both Delta and Atlas will cost less than what NASA spent building the Ares I MLP. We now also have a third domestic, non-paper LV in that class with Falcon 9.

While the engineering workforce at MSFC would certainly be better off with several more years of guaranteed design work, I don't see how this lengthy hiatus and dollars not spent on missions would benefit either the operations workforce at JSC and KSC, or NASA as a whole.

Agreed there would be no pad issues "out of the ordinary" here...but the "ordinary" issues would not be cheap, just like converting LC-39 from Saturn to STS after 1975 or the plans for converting LC-39 from STS to Constellation.

It isn't that I'm against heavy lift, or that I have some innate dislike of building a modern-day Saturn - I just don't see the point in spending several billion and several years to duplicate a largely existing capability. If we're going to spend money on LV development, let's spend it wisely on capabilities we don't already have.  At the same time, let's avoid the recent sort of high-risk, high-cost, decade-to-implementation MSFC daydreams that end up getting canceled before getting anywhere. A Boeing-LM operated SDLV or a ULA operated upgraded EELV, or even a Space-X BFR all make some degree of sense. Pick one now, and get far enough down that path so that we get more than powerpoints for the investment before the next big change comes along.

(My apologies for the rant - I'll get down off my soapbox now.)

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/05/2010 09:57 pm
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. :)   
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/05/2010 10:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/05/2010 10:13 pm
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.

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/05/2010 10:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/05/2010 10:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/05/2010 10:54 pm
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.

     

   

 
There is a thread dedicated to the CST 100 capsule. Assumed LV is Atlas V.

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.

I see no problem with manrating Atlas V. Delta IV is different............
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/05/2010 10:55 pm
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.

Exactly my point.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/05/2010 11:00 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/05/2010 11:12 pm
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.
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.
You would be better served with RS84 or BFE (based on RS 84).

Back to the Op: Seems like the most likely thing to happen is either Ares V or an SDHLV. I am hoping in the latter, and it seems more likely now. I think Kerolox core is probably not as likely, but it cannot be ruled out.

Also, any clue as to why DOD wants a new kerolox engine? EELV costs shouldn't be rising THAT much.............
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/05/2010 11:21 pm

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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/05/2010 11:26 pm

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.

Space-X won't be ready for a long time and what of the cost estimates for ULA, and OSC and Jim stating that EELV can do the job? 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. 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.

 

           

 


 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/05/2010 11:31 pm

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/05/2010 11:31 pm
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.
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 did look at the proposals a couple of months ago. They estimated 3/4bl. No defined time frame though. I will contact Rocketdyne. At my age a little foot work is great exercise.  :D  So far SpaceX is way behind schedule in filling it original contract. I don't think we should have to baby sit a company that is just starting to feel its growing pains and secondly I don't see anyone doing a damn thing. 

 

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/06/2010 12:00 am

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
Makes sense. But if they want it they should fund it. NASA has enough problems.....
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/06/2010 12:01 am

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.
Disagree with 3. But you know my reasons :) I am on the same page with the rest.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: jml on 07/06/2010 12:13 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/06/2010 12:17 am
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.
136 will be 2012 if it happens. Or late 2011. More likely 2012. J130 target is 2012-2014.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: psloss on 07/06/2010 12:39 am
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.
Thanks for this and the other details in later posts.  Good updates.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 01:05 am

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.
Disagree with 3. But you know my reasons :) I am on the same page with the rest.

I understand. My point is nothing is happening on that end. No considerations or even an evaluation. The announcement by the Senate Commerce Committee is also very vague. There is no plan. I am going to do whatever I can to change that. Wish me luck or.... :P Thanks for everyone's response and critiques.

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: khallow on 07/06/2010 01:21 am
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Spacetime on 07/06/2010 01:24 am
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. 

Thanks. That all makes sense. I was looking for confirmation on the Barbaree report and just found statements from the two senators you mentioned. Just wondered if I missed something! 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 01:39 am
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   


Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2010 01:42 am
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   



Would you develop a payload for an HLV without a commitment that one would be there?

How many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/06/2010 01:54 am

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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2010 02:00 am

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
No, those are:
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 02:09 am
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   



Would you develop a payload for an HLV without a commitment that one would be there?

How many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?

Q:1) Yes. For I would already know the HLV lifting capability and its design.
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.





         

 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2010 02:15 am
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   



Would you develop a payload for an HLV without a commitment that one would be there?

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.
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?
2) simple, 0, since the Delta IV was not announced until the year later.  Again, no launcher, no payloads.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 02:16 am

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
No, those are:
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.

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2010 02:18 am

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
No, those are:
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.


And what solution would that be, hmm?  There are no 45mT payload carriers being developed.  No carrier, no mission.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 02:22 am
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   



Would you develop a payload for an HLV without a commitment that one would be there?

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.
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?
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 )

 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 02:24 am

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
No, those are:
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.


And what solution would that be, hmm?  There are no 45mT payload carriers being developed.  No carrier, no mission.

I already have a 45mt carrier. I think your getting ahead of yourself Downix.

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2010 02:29 am

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
No, those are:
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.


And what solution would that be, hmm?  There are no 45mT payload carriers being developed.  No carrier, no mission.

I already have a 45mt carrier. I think your getting ahead of yourself Downix.


You do, where?  You should announce it to the world, as nobody right now offers such lift services.

I am talking a real payload, and you are talking nonsense.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2010 02:32 am
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   



Would you develop a payload for an HLV without a commitment that one would be there?

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.
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?
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 )
 
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.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 02:40 am

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
No, those are:
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.


And what solution would that be, hmm?  There are no 45mT payload carriers being developed.  No carrier, no mission.

I already have a 45mt carrier. I think your getting ahead of yourself Downix.


You do, where?  You should announce it to the world, as nobody right now offers such lift services.

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.

   



     
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 02:42 am
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   



Would you develop a payload for an HLV without a commitment that one would be there?

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.
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?
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 )
 
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.

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?

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2010 02:44 am

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
No, those are:
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.


And what solution would that be, hmm?  There are no 45mT payload carriers being developed.  No carrier, no mission.

I already have a 45mt carrier. I think your getting ahead of yourself Downix.


You do, where?  You should announce it to the world, as nobody right now offers such lift services.

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.
     
You seem to be struggling with this.  How about simpler:

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: jml on 07/06/2010 02:44 am
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.

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.

It almost seems that 51D has to make sure the proposal being drafted includes these salient points:
-design, manufacturing, and day-to-day ground operations to be the responsibility of the prime contractor, with NASA/DoD oversight in the same manner as the DoD/NASA/EELV program or the NASA COTS program.
- contracts to be structured as fixed non-recurring development cost, fixed annual facilities/infrastructure cost, and per flight cost (with annual allowances for inflation)
- all core tankage to be manufactured at MAF using existing 8.4m ET tooling to ensure compatibility with existing transport, assembly, and launch infrastructure
- all liquid engines and solid boosters to be US made and use existing, currently in-production designs with extensive flight history.  Development changes to these designs are only permitted when required to reduce cost, modernize out-of-production electronics, or increase safety and reliability.

That leaves Congress out of deciding detail trades like in-line vs side-mount or RS-68 vs SSME, but should make it clear enough that this program is to be as directly shuttle derived as possible.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2010 02:47 am
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   



Would you develop a payload for an HLV without a commitment that one would be there?

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.
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?
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 )
 
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.

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?

Already said that.  I know of one payload from direct experience.  There are others, they just need the lifter.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 02:49 am

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
No, those are:
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.


And what solution would that be, hmm?  There are no 45mT payload carriers being developed.  No carrier, no mission.

I already have a 45mt carrier. I think your getting ahead of yourself Downix.


You do, where?  You should announce it to the world, as nobody right now offers such lift services.

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.
     
You seem to be struggling with this.  How about simpler:

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.

No one is struggling here Downix. Look what happened to Ares 1. Now look at a Saturn C-3 and its defined purpose for example. A lot of departments have a tendency to over design.

 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 03:02 am
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2010 03:17 am
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?
You are spouting nonsense here.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/06/2010 03:24 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2010 03:30 am
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.

But it is a case of, nobody will invest the Billions into a payload until they know that there will be some mechanism for getting that in to the orbit necessary.

Can you imagine the CEO explaining to the board and stockholders that they sank $14 billion into a payload, with no way to get that to the orbit demanded?  If they sign an agreement for a launch, and the vendor fails to deliver, then they would have a scapegoat and you can imagine the lawsuits to fly.  But to build it without such an agreement?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 03:30 am
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?
You are spouting nonsense here.

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)

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2010 03:34 am
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?
You are spouting nonsense here.

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)
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.

And yes, "if it had flown."  It flew about as well as Ares I did, a partial test flight, but not a functional transport.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 03:36 am
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.

The point here is NASA has no clue why they are building a launch vehicle. They just want to keep people working. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/06/2010 03:39 am
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 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 03:39 am
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?
You are spouting nonsense here.

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)
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.

And yes, "if it had flown."  It flew about as well as Ares I did, a partial test flight, but not a functional transport.

Ares 1 was DOA. They did a 4-segment pony show. I had mentioned previously I hope NASA will find something to salvage from it.


Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 03:44 am
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.

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: kkattula on 07/06/2010 03:52 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/06/2010 03:54 am
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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 03:56 am
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.

Nice practical statement kkattula. Let me ask you, what would you want to put on a HLV (your call) in 7-8 years.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 04:14 am
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.

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/06/2010 04:18 am
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.)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/06/2010 04:19 am
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.


56 mt. to LEO.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: kkattula on 07/06/2010 04:26 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 04:46 am
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.

Any thoughts on Gravity and Radiation.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: madscientist197 on 07/06/2010 09:01 am

Please restrain yourselves: there is no need for nine unabridged, nested quotes.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/06/2010 10:19 am
Let me ask you, what would you want to put on a HLV (your call) in 7-8 years.

By 2015: ISS logistical carrier (both Orion-towed and independent flight versions with maximum commonality between them).  Likely flight-rate, two crewed and one robotic mission a year.

By 2018: Orion OML-derived short-duration orbital module, bolted directly to the upper stage, for BEO pathfinder missions to LLO & EML-1/-2.  Likely fliight-rate, once a year dual-launch (flight 1, mission module/EDS, flight 2 CRV & tanker to refill EDS).

By 2020: Either vacuum lander ('Altair-Lite') or long-duration hab module for NEO missions.  Whichever is chosen, the other becomes available in 2023-25.  Flight rate is dependent on exactly how you divide up the payloads but will likely be two or three launches per mission.

FWIW, with ISS to 2025 a serious possibility, I would say that the hab module is more likely to be required.  Running a BEO program in parallel with ISS operations, NASA is likely only going to want to fly one mission to NEOs a year (bigger instead of more frequent).  I would expect a flight rate of four per year minimum - two to support ISS and two for a single BEO mission. If lunar surface sorties are chosen intead, then a flight rate of six a year (two to ISS and two dual-launch BEO) is possible.


Any thoughts on Gravity and Radiation.

For me, AG experiments shouldn't really seriously start before 2025.  NEO flights are short enough not to need it (sometimes shorter than ISS expeditions and certainly within Mir-proven safety limits).

There are two obvious options: Hard and soft.  'Hard' would mean a 2001-style 'carousel' built inside the drum of a wide-body hab module (likely 10m or even 11m, requiring a 12m-diameter PLF).  'Soft' would use a tether/counterweight system with the hab module (plus emergency in-space manoeuvring system) rotating on the end of a long tether with the propulsion modules as the counterweight.

The radiation question is still unresolved and needs more data to even assess what protection is needed.  My favoured solution at this time is for a lightweight hull (perhaps a semi-rigid version of a transhab) with as much shielding on the outer layers as you can afford on the mass budget plus medical rather than physical mitigation.

IMHO, there is no way to effectively shield a crew totally or even against the majority of GCR so you will just have to settle for mitigation as far as practical and the admission that BEO flight simply isn't risk-free.  This is assuming no breakthroughs such as electromagnetic shields and the like.


[edit]
AG and radiation protection portion
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/06/2010 11:55 am

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
No, those are:
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. 

Wrong, they were planning to launch payloads on Delta IV (It did exist conceptually in 1997)

The same payloads that flew in 1997, eventually flew on Delta IV
DSP
Trumpet/Mentor
GOES
DSCS
SDS (in early 98)
DMSP
GPS

Most of these payloads were in production or even built before Delta IV was given the production go ahead.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/06/2010 12:03 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2010 12:20 pm
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. 

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. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/06/2010 12:24 pm

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. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2010 12:44 pm

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. 
We can go around in circles here forever. 

By this logic, it sounds that since ULA, the russians, ESA, etc do not build the right launcher, nor have one designed, that the company should go into the rocket launcher business, for a single payload?  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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/06/2010 12:53 pm
  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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2010 01:00 pm
  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
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/06/2010 01:29 pm
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
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.
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.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/06/2010 01:31 pm

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.

It is smart business sense for launch vehicle producers.    RCA and Intetsat funded their own booster upgrades.    There can be an agreement as part of funding the upgrade that other users can pay back part of the development costs.

For aircraft, being a launch customer is almost the same thing.

No need for an HLV.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/06/2010 01:36 pm
56 mt. to LEO.

Could you elaborate on that number?

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.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/06/2010 01:54 pm
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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2010 02:07 pm
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
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: MP99 on 07/06/2010 03:09 pm
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.

Note, a new foam will need to be qualified if any flights after STS-135 are to fly. From http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/07/nasa-refine-launch-dates-deadline-for-sts-135/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/07/nasa-refine-launch-dates-deadline-for-sts-135/):-

Quote
STS-136:

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.
(My highlight).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 03:27 pm
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.


 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2010 03:29 pm
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.
 
Finishing RS-84 and RL-60 would be even more cost effective than this. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: MP99 on 07/06/2010 03:41 pm
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.

Take payload (including any adapters) + burnout mass of the EDS + prop (after boiloff & any used during engine startup).

For the Jupiter vehicles, payload + burnout is around 47-48% of that total mass (IMLEO?).

Subtract EDS burnout mass to give payload. NB DIRECT rules include any adapters within that payload mass.

Of all Jupiter RL-10 vehicles, J-246a has the lowest T/W (which determines gravity losses) & Isp. See http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246-41.4003.08001_EDS_090606.pdf (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246-41.4003.08001_EDS_090606.pdf):-

Payload (inc ASE)79,053kg
EDS burnout12,962kg
usable post-ascent prop    99,896kg    NB this includes the engine startup prop

(79,053 + 12,962) / (79,053 + 12,962 + 99,896)
= 92,015 / 191,911
= 47.9%

This should be close enough for any EDS + payload with similar Isp & T/W. Actually, I tend to use 47% whenever trying to estimate a ballpark TLI figure.

cheers, Martin

PS J-241 has better T/W so only requires a net dV of 3175m/s vs 3215m/s for J-246a. Nevertheless, the lower Isp requires a higher prop fraction (53%):-

(79,729 + 13,924) / (79,729 + 13,924 + 103,399) = 47%

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J241-41.4002.08001_EDS_090606.pdf (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J241-41.4002.08001_EDS_090606.pdf)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/06/2010 03:42 pm

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.


Incorrect, look at the cost of the J-2X.  RS-68 has more use than F-1.  Same goes for RD-180
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/06/2010 04:17 pm
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.
 
Finishing RS-84 and RL-60 would be even more cost effective than this. 

RS25e is more cost effective than this. Best option.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2010 04:19 pm
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.
 
Finishing RS-84 and RL-60 would be even more cost effective than this. 

RS25e is more cost effective than this. Best option.
No argument there, but I was keeping with a kerolox first stage and hydrolox upper stage for the scope of the argument.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: MP99 on 07/06/2010 04:22 pm

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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/06/2010 04:22 pm
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.


 

You clearly haven't been paying attention. Read the current DIRECT thread cover to cover, then come back.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/06/2010 04:24 pm

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
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/06/2010 04:33 pm
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.
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.

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=231227/HLLV_Data_Team_Final_52010_for_BAA_posting%5B1%5D.pdf

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2010 04:37 pm
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.
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.

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=231227/HLLV_Data_Team_Final_52010_for_BAA_posting%5B1%5D.pdf

 - Ed Kyle
Ah ah ahh!  Not so fast.  The clean sheet Kerosene cost less than any SD utilizing SRB's. 

AJAX's approach has not been evaluated I do not believe.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 05:27 pm
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.
 
Finishing RS-84 and RL-60 would be even more cost effective than this. 

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.

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2010 05:31 pm
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.
 
Finishing RS-84 and RL-60 would be even more cost effective than this. 

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.

Only if you are using the ET.  If you used a Delta IV class vehicle, would only need two.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/06/2010 05:36 pm
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.
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.

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=231227/HLLV_Data_Team_Final_52010_for_BAA_posting%5B1%5D.pdf

 - Ed Kyle
Ah ah ahh!  Not so fast.  The clean sheet Kerosene cost less than any SD utilizing SRB's. 

AJAX's approach has not been evaluated I do not believe.

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.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/06/2010 05:39 pm

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

This doesn't make sense because there's no indication of why this timeframe is important.  Are we going to lose solids?  What is it about the future that makes the new kerolox rocket so important?

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?

1. Always a good question.

2. If we already know a good deal about the martian exobiology question, then it may make sense to study it in greater detail at an accelerated pace.  Otherwise, there don't seem to be any pressing needs or missions which inarguably stand out from any others.

3. And why do they keep calling it Not-shuttle-C?  'Cause it sure looks like that.  I don't object in principle to that.

...As I said, I know of at least 1 45mT payload sitting on paper...

Yes, and I have a smaller one, awaiting fleshing out and financing.  And I'm sure there are others.  I'm not quite sure that you made your point.  For example, I guess that you could take that design that you know of, and break it into two 22.5 ton parts.  With the financing and political clout given to the owners of that design, it could be launched on the shuttle in 2012.

It seems to me that when payloads get this big, they can be broken into smaller pieces.  My point is that we don't have the compelling missions, hence no compelling argument for the HLV.  I don't understand why they argue so loudly for this vehicle.
Quote
Orion + DIVUS, Hubble replacements (plural) and big spy-sats, new/replacement ISS modules, and eventually BEO flexible-path...
Quote
This 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.   
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2010 05:42 pm
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.

 - Ed Kyle
Quite true, but it would scale to payload needs far simpler than most other HLLV studies I have observed.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 05:51 pm
"While practically speaking, the launcher development would preceed the payload development in some scenarios, without a multi-term commitment from Congress, it doesn't seem likely.  Further, if Mars is indeed the "ultimate" next destination, who can say exactly how the construction time lines would go?"

There lies the problem. We are assuming a build for the "ultimate" next destination instead of building for any and all destinations.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: MP99 on 07/06/2010 05:52 pm
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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2010 06:31 pm
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.

I do understand where you are coming from, and I see you understand where I am.  So we're on the same page.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: MP99 on 07/06/2010 07:59 pm
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.

I do understand where you are coming from, and I see you understand where I am.  So we're on the same page.

DIRECT baseline the 4-segs. 5-segs are just a growth option.

DIRECT 3.0 also has RL-10 as their preferred u/s engine (enabled by the switch to SSME core engine).

cheers, Martin

Edit: but, yes, on the same page.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/06/2010 10:24 pm
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.
 
Finishing RS-84 and RL-60 would be even more cost effective than this. 

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.


NO NO NO NO NO !!!!

SDHLV Two SRBs+4 Rs 25 e OR 4 Atlas CCBS+ 4 Rs 25 e

No boosterless rockets please.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: psychocandy007 on 07/06/2010 11:00 pm
Quote
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.

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. 

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/06/2010 11:03 pm
Quote
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.

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. 

Quote
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.

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.


Direct could get to IOC for 8.2 billion or less :D
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: psychocandy007 on 07/06/2010 11:24 pm
Quote
The point here is Congress has no clue why they are building a launch vehicle. They just want to keep people working. 

Fixed your post.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/07/2010 01:21 am

Ok.
So, you will need a minimum of 6 x RS25e to get it off the ground.


NO NO NO NO NO !!!!

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 

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/07/2010 01:29 am

Ok.
So, you will need a minimum of 6 x RS25e to get it off the ground.


NO NO NO NO NO !!!!

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 


Um... you are aware that liquid boosters are lighter than solid boosters to get to the pad, and cost less to handle, right?

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Proponent on 07/07/2010 01:36 am
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.

Using a C3 of zero should give a reasonable result, albeit slightly on the pessimistic side.  Using a target orbit with the apogee set to that of the moon--about 400,000 km--might be a bit more accurate.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/07/2010 02:04 am
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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/07/2010 03:02 am

Ok.
So, you will need a minimum of 6 x RS25e to get it off the ground.


NO NO NO NO NO !!!!

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 


Um... you are aware that liquid boosters are lighter than solid boosters to get to the pad, and cost less to handle, right?

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. ::)

 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/07/2010 03:09 am
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:
1. Cheaper
2. Easier
3. Increase LEO preformance
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 ;)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/07/2010 03:33 am
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:
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 ;)

I know. When I was younger I always wanted #3 to get to #4. But then I felt like #1 after I did it. But that was then. :-\   

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: kkattula on 07/07/2010 04:01 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: HappyMartian on 07/07/2010 04:33 am
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.


Orion on a Jupiter-130S with TAN and restart capability for the SSMEs... Single Stage To Orbit? Refuel it in orbit and head off to the Moon. OK, I know I'm dreaming. But it is good to dream. Hey, a Jupiter-130S powered by 3 TAN J-2Xs instead of 3 TAN SSMEs... Yes! Time for a nice nap.

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/07/2010 04:44 am
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.

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.
   
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/07/2010 05:06 am
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.

Regarding "Cheaper", the MSFC HLLV study suggests otherwise.  Add-on boosters means another contractor chain, which means higher recurring costs, both in production and in test/launch. 

More hardware to build and test, in the form of add on boosters, cannot be "Easier".  It means more hardware to handle and checkout, etc.

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.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: kkattula on 07/07/2010 09:32 am
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.

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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/07/2010 10:27 am
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.

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.  One advantage of this will be that the HLV will be around earlier, allowing for a degree of shake-down with LEO missions.  The big risk will be that this stunts or even prevents the development of commercial LEO cargo and crew.  These capabilities will be needed when NASA's focus moves to BEO to maintain LEO missions.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/07/2010 10:35 am

Ok.
So, you will need a minimum of 6 x RS25e to get it off the ground.


NO NO NO NO NO !!!!

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 


Um... you are aware that liquid boosters are lighter than solid boosters to get to the pad, and cost less to handle, right?

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. ::)

No, you said "no strapons, solids please".  Grammer dictates that the comma indicates a change, so, it means "no strapons" then "solids please".

Sorry, nit-picking grammer.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/07/2010 02:13 pm
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.  ...

I'm not convinced that HLLV will be ready during the ISS lifetime.  Regardless, it seems to me all but certain that commercial crew and cargo ISS support will soon be official U.S. policy.  Once that effort starts, it will be nearly impossible, from either an engineering or political standpoint, to turn back.

There was much discussion, during the late 1960s, about using Saturn V to do other things, but in the end it was only used once for a non-Apollo mission - and even that could be considered an "applied Apollo" mission.  Super heavy rockets can't be used effectively for small tasks - and in the deep space universe anything less than crewed flight beyond Earth orbit is a small task.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: agman25 on 07/07/2010 03:14 pm
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: jml on 07/07/2010 06:04 pm
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 routine consumables, yes there is an issue if the commercial sector can provide the same service. However, at the Augustine hearings, the ISS program was forceasting a "negative upmass margin" for ISS resupply after STS retirement given the expected capabilities of commercial suppliers and international partners.  It would not be an issue to use a NASA-operated vehicle to eliminate that supply deficit. That wouldn't really take a new heavy lifter - STS-135 and STS-136 (ET-94 or ET-139) could do that job just fine.

Of course if a future heavy-lift vehicle is operated by a Boeing/LockMart consortium like USA or ULA instead of NASA, it would be considered every bit as "commercial" for the purposes of ISS resupply as the other government-contracted vendors.

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/07/2010 06:08 pm

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/07/2010 07:01 pm

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/07/2010 07:33 pm

MPLM for example.

Still not required.  See the concepts for Node 4 delivery.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/07/2010 07:49 pm

MPLM for example.

Still not required.  See the concepts for Node 4 delivery.
Let me see......
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: sdsds on 07/07/2010 08:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/07/2010 08:56 pm
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.


I would rather see more studies to repel radiation then absorbing it.

 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/07/2010 09:30 pm


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.

 
Deflecting "radiation" only works for charged particles not for neutral ones.
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 07/08/2010 12:11 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/08/2010 12:15 am
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 07/08/2010 12:17 am
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?

On orbit assembly has been invented.....
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/08/2010 12:23 am
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?

On orbit assembly has been invented.....
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/08/2010 12:28 am


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.

 
Deflecting "radiation" only works for charged particles not for neutral ones.
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.

Good response and a topic for a new thread unless one already exists. I do apologize, I should have said to redirect on absorption.

 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/08/2010 02:16 am
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)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: trout007 on 07/08/2010 02:38 am
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.

The trade is designing the technology for self docking/assembling modules vs HLV. I think the money is better spend working on the technology of automatically putting things together in space than an HLV.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JasonAW3 on 07/08/2010 02:42 am
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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: trout007 on 07/08/2010 02:49 am
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 you can just get the modules to dock together automatically and make only the necessary connections then when you send the crew up one of their first tasks will be getting the ship ready to sail.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/08/2010 10:17 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: rjholling on 07/08/2010 01:09 pm


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.

 
Deflecting "radiation" only works for charged particles not for neutral ones.
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. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/08/2010 02:15 pm
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/08/2010 02:37 pm
Could an "inflatable" module be used to create a much larger diameter centrifuge that could be launched inside a 5m EELV PLF?

That depends on how you are going to make it rotate.  I might be wrong, but I don't think it would be possible to have a non-rigid carousel that unfolds as the module inflates.  The 'floor' would need to be strenthened to stop it from bowing outwards in rotation and that would prevent it from being folded for launch.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/08/2010 03:30 pm


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.

 
Deflecting "radiation" only works for charged particles not for neutral ones.
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. 

Your still looking at a lot of weight and bulk added to the hull with water or LH2.

 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/08/2010 03:47 pm


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.

 
Deflecting "radiation" only works for charged particles not for neutral ones.
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. 

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've breaked to LEO, after all.  You will need this LH2 anyways.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/08/2010 03:56 pm


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.

 
Deflecting "radiation" only works for charged particles not for neutral ones.
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. 

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.

Well, they may decide to use Argon instead. ::) In any case NASA should get serious now about managing radiation and not wait till 2025 which makes a good discussion point.

 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/08/2010 06:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: simonbp on 07/08/2010 09:39 pm
Neutrons do not generally have enough energy to create particle cascades when they impact Aluminum, unlike heavy ions. So, the combination of a thick enough Al wall and a magnetic field to deflect heavy ions should be enough to dramatically reduced the total radiation dosage.

But seriously guys, what does particle physics have to do with a Senate Committee wanting to build HLVs?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/08/2010 09:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/08/2010 10:13 pm
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.

Since Obama (cough) will be retired before the Shuttle then yes BEO capabilities  ( particle physics, etc ) need to be discussed along with the HLV. Its all important...

So, what would you consider a reasonable safety margin for a Mars mission (ETA)?

 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: alexw on 07/08/2010 11:58 pm
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.
      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.
     The neutrinos of course are irrelevant, but the gammas and xrays are also neutral and can't be magnetically shielded.
    -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: ginahoy on 07/09/2010 01:07 am
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)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/09/2010 01:42 am
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.

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: rjholling on 07/09/2010 01:54 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Downix on 07/09/2010 01:57 am
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.


So ULA wins, got it.

Atlas v has a proven track record with one of the best success rates out there.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/09/2010 02:06 am
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:

Quote
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.

How is that different from what is already done under COTS and CCDev?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/09/2010 02:10 am
From the article
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/09/2010 02:13 am
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.


So ULA wins, got it.

Atlas v has a proven track record with one of the best success rates out there.
ULA could also bring their launcher to manrated the fastest (2013) :) Add on boeings CST 100 capsule and we have a winner!

Gap reducer as well.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/09/2010 02:17 am
From the article
Quote
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.
Not if the HLV is Direct :D But if the Sidemount people win out.................................
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/09/2010 02:26 am
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.


So ULA wins, got it.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/09/2010 02:32 am

SpaceX has a capsule that is about to fly. The CST-100 is not even a blueprint yet.

Dragon came to be public knowledge in early 2006.  Dragon was being worked to some degree before that. 

With respect to the CST-100, you would be quite incorrect. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/09/2010 02:35 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/09/2010 02:46 am
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. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/09/2010 02:59 am
OMG!  :-\

Everyone on the Commerce Space Subcommittee just died in a freak accident on their way to dinner at Kinkeads's. What a terrible loss.

In the mean time please welcome our new NasaSpaceFlight sponsor!
http://www.kibblesnbits.com/  ;D


Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/09/2010 03:02 am
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.

So ULA wins, got it.

Atlas v has a proven track record with one of the best success rates out there.

If ULA wins the crew launch contract, it stands to reason that some other company would be positioned to win the Heavy Lift job.   ;)

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/09/2010 03:11 am
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. 

I wasn't arguing that $50M for CCDev was a lot of money. So I am not sure what you mean by your divided money comment.

I was making the point that Dragon is further along than Boeing's CST-100. I wasn't saying anything about Falcon 9 or the Atlas V. Of course, the Atlas V has more of a track record. But neither of these rockets are yet man-rated.

In any event, the New York Times article doesn't tell us more than what Nelson already said in his letter:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22001.0
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/09/2010 08:12 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: kkattula on 07/09/2010 08:16 am
COTS style program with similar funding level and milestone payments, rather than a cost plus contract to just "go build us a crew launcher".
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/09/2010 08:46 am
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"?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/09/2010 02:09 pm
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"?

Although a COTS like program was given as an example of what could work, Bolden was not entirely clear on how commercial crew would be funded. He probably wanted to discuss it with commercial companies prior to defining it. To me the the "walk before you run" approach just means that NASA will fund a new CCDev round before awarding a CRS type contract. Such a gradual approach was also intended by Bolden.   

The only issue with the COTS approach is that NASA requires companies to put some skin into the game under COTS. ULA and its parent companies do not seem very enthustiatic about having to inject new money into ULA in order to man-rate the Atlas V. They feel that they have already put enough skin into ULA in the past. So I am not sure how this will work.   Hopefully, the legislation will give NASA some leeway on this issue. IMO, these kind of details should be managed at the NASA level.
 
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100402-commercial-crew-plan--hinge-risk-sharing.html
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/09/2010 02:27 pm
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.

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 ).

 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/09/2010 02:57 pm
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"?

Backlash. Remember the thread I did about how congressional anger could result in commercial crew unfairly restricted? Fy 2011 ends up hurting commercial crew (oops) :P
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/09/2010 03:07 pm


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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/09/2010 03:15 pm


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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/09/2010 03:17 pm


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

Congress never funded COTS-D. Although to be fair, neither SpaceX nor Kistler was ready for COTS-D in 2006. But had COTS-D been funded in 2008, Boeing would have probably won the 2008 COTS award (and not Orbital).   
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/09/2010 03:19 pm


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.

They will only add STS-135 based on the letter from Nelson.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: M_Puckett on 07/09/2010 03:42 pm
What is being played-out is a giant game of chicken.

Where are the adults in all this?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/09/2010 03:49 pm


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.

They will only add STS-135 based on the letter from Nelson.

Do they have enough tanks? Oh, I agree with dumping CxP. I meant regarding how they went about doing that and everything else.



Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/09/2010 03:54 pm


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.

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/
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: simonbp on 07/09/2010 04:00 pm
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...
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: simonbp on 07/09/2010 04:06 pm
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).
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/09/2010 04:08 pm
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...

You have seen the bill?

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).
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/09/2010 04:17 pm
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).

Thanks for the chart. That's an informative summary.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/09/2010 04:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/09/2010 04:37 pm


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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/09/2010 04:44 pm
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.

I know that COTS and CRS are 2 different things. I was simply saying that under a walk before you run approach for commercial crew, the awarding of a CRS-type contract for ferrying crew would have to wait until the CCDev/COTS-D type agreement is complete or nearly complete. But I am speculating. We will find out next week.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/09/2010 04:52 pm


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.

I just noticed that the CRS contracts for SpaceX and Orbital are actually available online.

1- Orbital's CRS contract (milestones payments are on page 27 of the main contract but have been redacted):
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/contracts/NNJ09GA02B/NNJ09GA02B.html

2- SpaceX's CRS contract (milestones payments are on page 25 of the main contract but have been redacted):
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/contracts/NNJ09GA04B/NNJ09GA04B.html 

P.S. For other contracts, see here:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/contracts/index.html
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: phantomdj on 07/09/2010 06:13 pm

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/

There are requests for build schedules for a LON vehicle for STS-135 (a LON for the LON since STS-135 is really 335 and not approved for flight yet :) ).  I would assume this would use the light weight tank.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/09/2010 06:27 pm
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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/09/2010 06:36 pm
As 51D Mascot said, the legislation will be introduced, marked up and  sent to the full Senate next Tursday but it won't pass next Thursday.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22163.msg614614#msg614614
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/09/2010 06:38 pm
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.
 


   
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/09/2010 06:42 pm
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.

Actually both articles provide no new information that wasn't already in Nelson's letter:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/files/2010/06/BN_letter_to_BAM_061410.pdf

See this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22001.0
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/09/2010 06:47 pm
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

I know, people were flying high like kids in a candy store on that one. Next week there will be another practical evaluation. Everyone have a wonderful weekend.

Oh. Two new threads that have been established recently if anyone would care to indulge:

1).  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22209.0

2).  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22210.0








Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/10/2010 01:02 pm
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100710/NEWS02/7100318/1007/Funding+may+alter+NASA+s+spaceflight+direction Nelson bill alter NASA's spaceflight direction-"Faster development of a heavy-lift launch
vehicle to begin in 2011 instead of 2015.
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
Ares I and Ares V rockets."... "Nelson said he believed the White House accepted that "the biggest part of the president's goals are being fulfilled."
If Nelson's "miracle" scenario comes to fruition, Senate appropriators would approve proposed spending levels a week after the authorization bill is passed, and it would be reconciled with a House bill. Then, even if Congress fails to approve a full federal budget until after this fall's elections, the new policy and budget could be incorporated into a "continuing resolution" that otherwise would have just preserved this year's budget."
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: rcoppola on 07/10/2010 01:52 pm
5 seg SRBs ...check.
J2...check.
Orion BEO, free of Ares 1 constraints...check.
Workforce familiar with components...check.
Friction weld machining in place...check.

Let's do this! Pass the bill, let's get exploring again. A bird in hand is better then 2 in the bush.
Let commercial keep rocking! But let's get NASA back into the BEO HSF. Nothing will cure the crippling malaise of the past year better then seeing a fully capable BEO Orion being fully assembled while a SDHLV is stacked in VAB!
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/10/2010 01:58 pm
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...

Nelson says they shouldn't design the rocket, but then explains how the rocket is going to be designed.

It would be better, I believe, for NASA to clean-sheet the HLLV design.  Shuttle-Derived is outdated and costly compared to what could, at this point in time, be accomplished with a fresh start.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/10/2010 02:05 pm
Those contracts are very interesting.  In the case of SpaceX, the most important parts of the contract have been redacted from the scansmof the documents.  That would be pages 9-14, and parts of pages 25 and 44.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: 2552 on 07/10/2010 03:26 pm
Quote from: Florida Today
A more cautious approach to commercial crew taxis. Nelson said that $6 billion Obama wants to help ready commercial rockets and spacecraft for human flight would be spread out over six years instead of five, adopting a "walk before you run" approach.

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

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

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



Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/10/2010 04:31 pm
Quote from: Florida Today
A more cautious approach to commercial crew taxis. Nelson said that $6 billion Obama wants to help ready commercial rockets and spacecraft for human flight would be spread out over six years instead of five, adopting a "walk before you run" approach.

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

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.

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)?

Either the core-only, no-booster option or, more likely, the core + SRMs with no upper stage option.  The latter would enable you to use SSME rather than have to human-rate RS-68A and it would also give you higher IMLEO than the core-only, critical when you realise that the crew vehicle will be a 23t Orion rather than the ~10t CST-100 or Dragon.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/10/2010 06:28 pm
Quote from: Florida Today
A more cautious approach to commercial crew taxis. Nelson said that $6 billion Obama wants to help ready commercial rockets and spacecraft for human flight would be spread out over six years instead of five, adopting a "walk before you run" approach.

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

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/10/2010 06:46 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/10/2010 08:10 pm
Commercial crew is a fraction of the cost and the different commercial companies are each other's backup.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: MP99 on 07/10/2010 08:20 pm
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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: SpacexULA on 07/10/2010 09:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/10/2010 09:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/10/2010 10:09 pm
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.

HLV is not as vulnerable as commercial crew (if its a true SDHLV like j130). The reason is that HLV has far more political support (because the supply chain is spread over many states) than commercial crew does. And no its not "just the spacecraft" with commercial crew, Spacex used COTS money to develop falcon 9. Spacex can survive, IMO, without ANY NASA funding.

As long as said HLV is desinged to be cost effective from the ground up (like DIRECT) it is less vulnerable. The trouble comes when you start "tweaking" things :P
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/10/2010 10:09 pm
Not really, when you realise that commercial crew is also a large multi-year program that is greatly dependent on public funding.  Commercial crew is also vulnerable to defunding, political feuds and unexpected technical issues.

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

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

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

ULA received money under CCDev. Blue Origin received money for a LAS under CCDev. So I imagine that it is more than money for just a spacecraft. ULA is asking for $1B-$2B to manrate the Atlas V.
When did ULA ask for that much?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: SpacexULA on 07/10/2010 10:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/10/2010 10:31 pm
ULA received money under CCDev. Blue Origin received money for a LAS under CCDev. So I imagine that it is more than money for just a spacecraft. ULA is asking for $1B-$2B to manrate the Atlas V.
When did ULA ask for that much?

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

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

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

Atlas only needs the EDSP.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/11/2010 12:04 am
Not really, when you realise that commercial crew is also a large multi-year program that is greatly dependent on public funding.  Commercial crew is also vulnerable to defunding, political feuds and unexpected technical issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“When you start getting into a heavier crew transfer vehicle and a dedicated launch facility, it’s over a billion dollars, but less than two,” Mr. Gass said. Those improvements “should be funded by the U.S. government” without additional investment from Boeing and Lockheed, he said.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/11/2010 03:48 am
Quote from: Florida Today
A more cautious approach to commercial crew taxis. Nelson said that $6 billion Obama wants to help ready commercial rockets and spacecraft for human flight would be spread out over six years instead of five, adopting a "walk before you run" approach.

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

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

Does "central core" = ET? Is he talking about the SSTO crew launcher from the Boeing SD-HLV proposal (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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/11/2010 04:20 am
Are similar rules being applied to Orion and HLV?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: libs0n on 07/11/2010 04:24 am
FY2011 one flight shuttle extension money has to come from somewhere, and it clearly comes from pushing commercial crew into FY2012 in this proposal.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: spacetraveler on 07/11/2010 01:04 pm
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/11/2010 01:24 pm
So if Orion would be launched on whatever this HLV will be, will they be able to put back all the stuff they had to strip out to accommodate Ares I?

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

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

That is the objective.  Indeed, if the JSC study on HLV applications for ISS support is to believed, NASA believes that it could launch both cargo and crew on the same flight.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/11/2010 03:09 pm
5 seg SRBs ...check.
J2...check.

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

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

cheers, Martin

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

     

 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: renclod on 07/11/2010 04:25 pm
Quote from: 2552
...
Quote from: Florida Today
"In the development of a heavy-lift (vehicle), you have a central core that could be a back-up" if the commercial initiative fails, he said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/11/2010 05:12 pm
Quote from: Florida Today
A more cautious approach to commercial crew taxis. Nelson said that $6 billion Obama wants to help ready commercial rockets and spacecraft for human flight would be spread out over six years instead of five, adopting a "walk before you run" approach.

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

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

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

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

51D Mascot, do you believe that the President will veto this bill?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/11/2010 05:21 pm
So if Orion would be launched on whatever this HLV will be, will they be able to put back all the stuff they had to strip out to accommodate Ares I?

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

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

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

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

Could a BEO Orion be used for servicing the ISS (as a stop gap measure if it is ready before commercial crew)?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: rcoppola on 07/11/2010 05:28 pm
So if Orion would be launched on whatever this HLV will be, will they be able to put back all the stuff they had to strip out to accommodate Ares I?

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

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

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

Personally, I'd rather go BEO block 2 now, have it ready for HLV and support commercial space for LEO HSF.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: renclod on 07/11/2010 06:14 pm
Quote
So if Orion would be launched on whatever this HLV will be,

It just won't happen.

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

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/11/2010 06:39 pm
True. There is a lot of squabbling going on between commercial companies about who may have the best shot. They can't meet the requirements or promote a viable solution because they just don't have the power to get off the pad.

Do you have a source for these (IMHO bizarre) claims?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: SpacexULA on 07/11/2010 07:45 pm
True. There is a lot of squabbling going on between commercial companies about who may have the best shot. They can't meet the requirements or promote a viable solution because they just don't have the power to get off the pad. I think Congress has the opportunity now because of Obama's lack of leadership to delay any firm action or allow the dust to settle so to speak. Retaining jobs temporary is important even though the original objective was not well thought out.

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/11/2010 08:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/11/2010 08:17 pm
Quote from: 2552
...
Quote from: Florida Today
"In the development of a heavy-lift (vehicle), you have a central core that could be a back-up" if the commercial initiative fails, he said.

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

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

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

(http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=18348)

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

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/srb-x.htm
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: renclod on 07/11/2010 08:33 pm
Oh dear god no -

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

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/11/2010 08:53 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: 2552 on 07/11/2010 09:31 pm
Oh dear god no -

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

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

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

Agreed. Nelson isn't even talking about Ares 1 testing anymore. Also, there was a meeting (http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2010/05/keeping-a-cance.html) in May between Nelson and some people from Boeing about the Boeing SD-HLV proposal:

Quote
Meanwhile, big aerospace contractors are trying to sell members of Congress on a new $8 billion rocket that could be fashioned from pieces of the space shuttle, which is supposed to be retired later this year. Last week, a group of contractors led by aerospace giant Boeing Co. met Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., to push the new rocket idea.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/11/2010 09:42 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: alexw on 07/11/2010 10:14 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/science/space/12rocket.html?_r=1
Quote
Michael C. Gass, president and chief executive of United Launch Alliance, has said that upgrading the low-end version of the Atlas V for astronauts — adding a monitoring system to alert controllers of problems with the rocket and modifying the launching pad to handle astronauts — would cost $400 million.

“When you start getting into a heavier crew transfer vehicle and a dedicated launch facility, it’s over a billion dollars, but less than two,” Mr. Gass said. Those improvements “should be funded by the U.S. government” without additional investment from Boeing and Lockheed, he said.

   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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: SpacexULA on 07/11/2010 10:42 pm
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.

Shuttle retirement in 2010 was the plan for the last 5 years.  Why where you not up in arms while the last administration was carrying out the bulk of it?

Before Obama proposed his quite radical departure to making NASA purchase launch services the same way EVERY OTHER DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT DOES IT, the Senate could only talk about Ares 1.  Now 6 months later they only mention Ares 1 every 3rd word.  It's an improvement, and if his proposal hadn't been so radically like DOD, ESA, & RSA's procurement methods in it's normalness we would still be hearing around Ares 1 only.

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]
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: kkattula on 07/11/2010 11:22 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/science/space/12rocket.html?_r=1
Quote
Michael C. Gass, president and chief executive of United Launch Alliance, has said that upgrading the low-end version of the Atlas V for astronauts — adding a monitoring system to alert controllers of problems with the rocket and modifying the launching pad to handle astronauts — would cost $400 million.

“When you start getting into a heavier crew transfer vehicle and a dedicated launch facility, it’s over a billion dollars, but less than two,” Mr. Gass said. Those improvements “should be funded by the U.S. government” without additional investment from Boeing and Lockheed, he said.

   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

AIUI, the second case is Delta IV Heavy for launching Orion.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/11/2010 11:59 pm
  If EELV is good enough for DOD, NOAA, and commercial operators, it's more than good enough for NASA.

NASA buys the EELV's for NOAA.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: alexw on 07/12/2010 03:37 am
Quote
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/science/space/12rocket.htm
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.
AIUI, the second case is Delta IV Heavy for launching Orion.
   Do you infer that from some other information than the quote above? It's not otherwise clear that he's suddenly changed rockets.
      -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: kkattula on 07/12/2010 03:44 am
   Do you infer that from some other information than the quote above? It's not otherwise clear that he's suddenly changed rockets.
      -Alex

Ever since A-Com the conversation's been about crew cab on Atlas V &/or Orion on Delta IV-H. Those numbers match the quote.

Personally, I think Atlas V Heavy would be better, but DIV-H already exists, and the RS-68 is made in the USA.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/12/2010 03:46 am
Quote
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/science/space/12rocket.htm
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.
AIUI, the second case is Delta IV Heavy for launching Orion.
   Do you infer that from some other information than the quote above? It's not otherwise clear that he's suddenly changed rockets.
      -Alex

The Orion is the only "heavier crew transfer vehicle" that's been proposed. EELV Orion requires Delta IV Heavy, ~$1.3B, and a dedicated launch pad, which aren't required by lighter commercial crew vehicles. The differences were discussed in Gass's presentation for ULA to the Augustine Committee:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361835main_08%20-%20ULA%20%201.0_Augustine_Public_6_17_09_final_R1.pdf
Quote
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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/12/2010 05:41 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Lars_J on 07/12/2010 06:20 am
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.

It would certainly be big win for gap EXTENSION. I can only laugh at this point.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: sdsds on 07/12/2010 06:51 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/12/2010 07:59 am
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.

Seems like Nelson's idea of a compromise is: reduce R&D funding 5 times, robotics funding 4 times and commercial crew funding 3 times, so he can come up with the money to fund, what else, another launcher.
Here I thought he might manage to find other sources of funding and not raid the money from the rest of NASA like Griffin. This is like Cxp all over again, I hope his bill bursts in flames.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/12/2010 02:06 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/12/2010 02:16 pm
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.

I think it is all in the wording. "Utilize" in this case could mean that NASA would be allowed to modify some contracts where they see fit.

The only part that gets messy is that the contract to build the 5 seg Ares I first stage is much more expensive than the contract to build the standard 4 seg boosters.

Unless ATK has some modifications they could make to the existing 4 segs to improve performance?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/12/2010 02:25 pm
How many people here have seen and read the bill?  I certainly haven't.  So this is all wild speculation, doom-and-gloom, etc with even less data than was offered with the FY2011 proposal, which should say something.  Orlando Sentinel is reporting its interpretation of something but not sharing anything beyond that. 

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. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/12/2010 02:33 pm


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.

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/12/2010 02:41 pm
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.

On the issue of the funding for commercial crew, what is surprising is that Nelson said that it would be $6B over 6 years just last Friday. What happened during the weekend to reduce that amount to less than half (if you assume about $500M for commercial crew in each year during the FY2014-2016 period, you get about $2.4B over 6 years).

This level of funding is more of a crawl before you walk approach...
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/12/2010 02:59 pm


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.



Jim, my "heartburn" with ending shuttle is not based on anything other than doing it totally arbitrarily without anything to replace it and jeopardizing the near-term with respect to ISS and personnel.  Perhaps that is what you meant but I just wanted to make it clear. 

For the record I believe those question must be known.  Those foundational questions must be known in order to derive a meaningful budget and budget requests for the future, otherwise they are shots in the dark, shooting from the hip, etc and you can pick your favorite phrase. 

With respect to FTD, etc we do not even know how those budgets were derived.  That is exactly the problem with this kind of change, at the time it was announced without any transition.  We are now at a point where even if FY2011 proposal was enacted exactly as proposed, it seems unlikely that contracts, etc would be able to be established, personnel hired, etc to spend that kind of money during the FY. 

The VSE was announced in January 2004.  Obviously much behind the scenes coordination was done prior to that.  More importantly NASA had the time to scope out the program before formally asking for the appropriations even if the general funding sources and amounts were already pre-coordinated when announced (even though they totally failed to show up).  I believe that is the major difference between then and now.  If I'm wrong, someone, anyone, show me an "official" source, meaning from the government who is going to pay for this, where all those questions I have posed are answered. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jorge on 07/12/2010 04:28 pm


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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: alexw on 07/12/2010 06:52 pm
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,
     Do I understand correctly that you are saying that credibility of any major change in plan (such as FY11) requires that there be a significant overlap between the old plan and new plan so that the workforce can transition without unemployment? If so, then three questions:
     1) I can see why one may regard such a smooth transition as desirable, but why do you state that the credibilty of the plan depends absolutely upon it?
     2) What length of overlap (obviously more than one year but not more than six) would you regard as adequate, or as minimally adequate for credibility?
     3) Does the foregoing not assume that that the workforce would be largely identical between plans, and if so, why must that be the case? It seems unclear to me that large portions of the workforce at Brevard and Michoud is best-suited for post-FY2011 flight hardware, but doubtless I don't have your insight into the people involved.
      -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/12/2010 07:07 pm
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]

DoD and commercial operators have no need to go BEO, NASA does.  Hence that idiom does not apply.

If we are stuck in LEO, then EELV's are fine.  If not, lets make the cheapest HLV possible, which is SD right now.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/12/2010 07:18 pm
What I fail to understand is why so many in the "space community" always want to believe in the worst with whatever exists and always believe "the grass is greener on the other side".  This as much as anything, helps promote the endless cycle of "starts and stops" that occur.  This also includes the hope for elimination of a specialized and unique workforce, after all this is not Walmart, for the vague, unspecific "promise" of something "better".

Since this is not Walmart, when you eliminate the majority of this Nation's human space flight workforce by shutting down 2 out 3 major programs in parallel with nothing to replace it, what do you expect to happen?  Obviously, there are other companies out there that are working on hardware.  Yet, at the same time, lets not be so naive to assume the majority of that experience exists there.  Also at this moment in time, it exists within the confines of NASA and the current contractors.  You may not like that but that is the way it is.  The currently smaller companies, at this moment in time, cannot absorb that workforce.  This results in the loss of experience and talent.  This hard-won experience and talent will not come running back to have it done all over again. 

Now all that said, and let me make this perfectly clear again, no one expects a 1:1 job transfer.  Obviously that is unrealistic.  Yet by degrading and minimizing the skill sets of a couple of specific sites with specfic and long experience with the assembly and test of major spaceflight components is unreasonable.  Not to mention, you do not even know what "post-FY2011 flight hardware" is.  No one does and that is the problem. 

The "space community's" advocacy is the "space community's" own worse enemy in my opinion. 

Now I'm getting off my soapbox, and this was not *specifically* aimed at Alex, but I feel better with that off my chest. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/12/2010 07:50 pm
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)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/12/2010 07:56 pm
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)

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 that has claimed to have seen a "draft" and bashed Utah. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/12/2010 07:57 pm
The Sentinel journalist has seen a version of the bill. But you are right in saying that this may not be the bill that will be disclosed on Thursday as the Sentinel journalist may have seen an earlier draft of the bill.

I seriously hope that the funding for commercial crew is restored. I can understand the reasoning for delaying the funding for commercial crew to the end of FY2011 (because of Shuttle extension and because of the need to prepare for commercial crew requirements). But slashing  funding for commercial crew in FY2012 and 2013 by more than half is not an attempt at a compromise.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/12/2010 08:02 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Andy USA on 07/12/2010 08:04 pm
Trimmed the absolutely pointless slashdot posts.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: blairf on 07/12/2010 08:06 pm
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 ;-)

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/12/2010 08:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/12/2010 08:25 pm
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 ;-)



Forgive me, I seriously did not mean to single anything out.  What I was hitting at, and you probably in reality know this, that you can't just take anyone "off the street" and expect them to do this kind of work such as could possibly be done at the local Walmart with respect to cashiers, stock-boys, etc. 

As for the logistical complexity, I really do get that.  It is kind of like coordinating mission requirements, vehicle checkouts, failure analysis of components at particular vendors across the country, training a crew, getting the equipment, food, supplies to a launch site by a particular day to meet said requirements, etc.  It is all a very well orchestrated machine with hick-ups, delays, etc that all must be managed. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/12/2010 08:26 pm
Trimmed the absolutely pointless slashdot posts.

?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: clongton on 07/12/2010 08:33 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/12/2010 08:35 pm
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 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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/12/2010 08:36 pm
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.

Having not seen the PROPOSED legislation, I guess all I can really say is this.  IF there are words in there that point specifically toward a SDLV vehicle, then the aids to the members of Congress, that actually write the bills, do not work in a vacuum.  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. 

I cannot speak to that study any more than that.  The reason I say it is because just perhaps those in Congress and who work for Congress have seen it.  Perhaps they would like to preserve the results from that study because waiting any significant time longer would essentially take that option from the table. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/12/2010 08:42 pm
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.

Wow, with all due respect, you totally missed the point.  Obviously Congressional legislation will not have that level of detail. 

The contractual vehicles you described, among others, are exactly the details that are unknown that I was referring to.  Furthermore, those details, or at least a general agreement between government and industry, on how much cost the government will cover and subsidize with respect to development is vitally important to budget requests and therefore schedule, up to initial operation. 

If this bridge is not crossed, there is no way to get to the fixed cost operational buys that you describe.  Even then there is at least some question on how much "overhead" will be placed in that in order to maintain all that will be required to keep that capability viable with presumably a relatively low flight rate. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/12/2010 08:44 pm
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 ;-)


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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/12/2010 08:46 pm
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/12/2010 08:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: sdsds on 07/12/2010 08:50 pm
With regards to a hypothetical unreleased NASA study that overwhelmingly points to SDLV as the right choice, would that study have been included in the materials NASA delivered to Room 2321 of the Rayburn House Office Building no later than close of business on Friday June 25, 2010?

Would there be anything preventing the House Science and Technology Committee from sharing that information with the Senate?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: marsavian on 07/12/2010 08:53 pm
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.

I don't think this has anything to do with courting public opinion. Congress is just getting its act together to present a united position rather than just complaining it doesn't like FY2011 in light of the Administration's refusal to compromise and de facto early shutting down of Cx despite being told not to. Congress is now playing the same hardball and is saying it wants NASA to have its own BEO HLV *now* which only a SD-HLV can provide. If Obama's advisors want to spend more money on commercial companies they will have to get more money requested by the President because Congress is not going to give them any more out of the $19bn. We are approaching the endgame now 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. Direct/Boeing SD-HLV has won 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 ;).


Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/12/2010 09:01 pm
I hope 51D Mascot comments on this issue. But that's not really how the legislative process works. There is usually some discussion and back and forth betwen Congress and the President. Congress prefers that its legislation not be vetoed (especially when the Democrats control Congress). The 2010 NASA Authorization bill will be a stand-alone bill. It can easily be vetoed. NASA appropriation legislation is another matter. Aprropriation legislation is hard to veto because you would be vetoing the entire budget.  This isn't settled.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/12/2010 09:01 pm
Patience my young apprentices - patience.
Yes. And I'm glad that things are coming to a head.

But it is extremely unpredictable. The metaphor of SDLV is not clear - different for all communities of interest. To some, it's "keep the old deals at any costs". To others they wish to win at the cost of others - what scares me most are mentions of a 5 seg SRB-X like contraption.

People are playing this up to own communities. They don't see the considerable downside risk - budget envy and over reach.

Highly unstable and easily "monkey wrenched".
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/12/2010 09:08 pm
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.

Ok, I was apparently thinking of the ~70mt estimated "payload w/ additional 10% reserve" instead of the ~77mt "payload w/ regular NASA GR&A's".
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/12/2010 09:09 pm
We are approaching the endgame now
Yes
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.

You cannot legislate  "guaranteed exciting manned BEO exploration".

You cannot assume the economy will afford it by "before we are all too old to care" time.

Please don't be naive. Otherwise you may see another VSE disappointment.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: marsavian on 07/12/2010 09:19 pm
We should at least get an Apollo 8 redux in HD before the decade is out ;).
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/12/2010 09:21 pm
We should at least get an Apollo 8 redux in HD before the decade is out ;).
And this is good ... how?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/12/2010 09:22 pm
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. 

Personally, I would rather see that study made public as opposed to this dubious legislation proposed by Nelson, etc.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/12/2010 09:25 pm
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.

Who I work for is totally irregardless.  In fact I have never, ever mentioned who I work for but obviously you know how to use Google. 

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. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: marsavian on 07/12/2010 09:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 07/12/2010 09:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/12/2010 09:38 pm
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. 

Didn't mean to imply that you would. NASA is a big place; I'm just surprised no one has.

Also, I thought you implied you had seen the study. Sorry to make that mistake.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/12/2010 09:38 pm
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.

Que scary and dramatic music.....
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: MATTBLAK on 07/12/2010 09:40 pm
It should be viewed as Apollo 8 was: a TEST flight, not as an ends to itself. Once you have Orion and an HLV/BEO capability, you can start to lock-in plans to visit a NEO, perhaps at the earliest window before 2020.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/12/2010 09:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/12/2010 09:47 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/12/2010 10:03 pm
Looks like the bill consideration is officially scheduled for Thursday now:

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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: zerm on 07/12/2010 10:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: MATTBLAK on 07/12/2010 10:23 pm
"We postpone BEO."

(controlling myself :o). Isn't that what's been happening already the last 38 years, or have some of us been asleep??!!  ::)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/12/2010 10:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/12/2010 10:29 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/12/2010 10:30 pm
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.

As always, sound rationale. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: psloss on 07/12/2010 10:31 pm
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.
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.

The bill may go to the floor on Thursday, but that's just another step and there are several more to go.  (Also remains to be seen whether the House bill will look the same or not.)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: marsavian on 07/12/2010 10:36 pm
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.

It will be cheaper, no more than Shuttle. One significant difference is that you could send it unmanned to different places first, measure the total radiation received and then enhance it for better human safety before sending live crew out. You could also do some science along the way. Just need a little imagination and positivity to think of the possibilities ;).
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: marsavian on 07/12/2010 10:45 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: MATTBLAK on 07/12/2010 10:47 pm
The U.S. has been affording those 'expensive' Shuttle missions for 30 years: the Shuttle isn't making the U.S. economy weak, never will. Saying Apollo 8 style missions are too expensive is a bit - whats the word I'm looking for - disengenuous or even obvious and misleading all in one. If you like, America has been launching several HLVs per year for all these years. If Nelson and others want to preserve this capability, but shift it BEO, how can anyone who loves Space have a problem with that?! Shift the expensive missions away from the Earth and help Commercial Space largely take over cargo and crew to LEO.

NASA should not be a (space)trucking organisation; leave that to the up-and-coming professionals. NASA needs to explore.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/12/2010 11:02 pm
If this is a trial balloon, it needs to be popped before Thursday.

As always, sound rationale. 

I'm glad we agree on this. :)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/12/2010 11:11 pm
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.

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.

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.  :)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 07/12/2010 11:19 pm
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.

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.

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.  :)

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: kkattula on 07/12/2010 11:19 pm
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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/12/2010 11:20 pm
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. 

After all, it's nothing like the president's proposal where after 5 months we still know essentially what we did on day one.  Minus of course the flailing about on Orion, what its role and mission will be, how much it will cost, when it will be available and how it impacts or synergizes with the rest of the vague and nebulous proposal. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: marsavian on 07/12/2010 11:41 pm

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 07/12/2010 11:42 pm

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/13/2010 12:01 am

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.
"they don't need HLV "

actually....................
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/13/2010 12:04 am
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/13/2010 12:20 am
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.htm
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: marsavian on 07/13/2010 12:43 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_balloon
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-trial-balloon.htm
Quote
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.

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.

Do you really think loud mock outrage by the very few nuspace intelligentsia counts as public reaction ? There was far greater real public and media reaction when the 'Moon Rockets' got canceled with the initial FY2011 budget presentation and the majority was vociferously unfavorable.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: MATTBLAK on 07/13/2010 12:47 am
Exactly!
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/13/2010 01:47 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Proponent on 07/13/2010 01:56 am
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.
"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).
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 07/13/2010 03:07 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Proponent on 07/13/2010 03:24 am
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.)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/13/2010 03:33 am
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.
What's in the draft?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/13/2010 03:36 am
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.htm
Quote
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.

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.

What makes you think its a trial balloon? I think your wrong.
Way wrong.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/13/2010 03:36 am
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.
"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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 07/13/2010 03:38 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/13/2010 03:39 am
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.
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.

Nothing has to lose if you do it right. So this is ethier sidemount or something else (I smell griffin again............)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/13/2010 03:41 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 07/13/2010 03:48 am
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.
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.

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. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 07/13/2010 04:06 am
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.

It is Detroit all over again imho. Inability to realize the future cannot be the same as the past. No HLV could be ready in time to stop the STS losses and no HLV that is modern and economical would require anywhere near the same workforce. I think Nelson is playing into or is paralyzed by voter denial.

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.

Lately when I think of NASA, I don’t think of a daring organization on the cutting edge of technology. I think of it as one trying to relive glory days. Not a good thing.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: vt_hokie on 07/13/2010 04:14 am

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).
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: kirghizstan on 07/13/2010 04:20 am
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.
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.

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. 

what new engines do you speak of?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 07/13/2010 04:27 am

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).

Ah no politician who wishes to get elected in this country will be loudly and unabashedly pro spaceflight. If he were hostile all he had to do keep consultation going and reduce funding. I agree anything beyond the next 5 years is too far in the future, but I like the FTD demonstrations (they would leave us in a better place than what we have).

 I also don’t think keeping what is currently in place is viable. The shuttle might get a mission or two, but it needs to be replaced period. Shuttle derived is a mockery of the word if all the changes I have seen go into place plus what sort of positive changes are you locking out by mandating that it be shuttle derived?

Direct might have been smarter than constellation, but still I wouldn’t call either cheap. I think getting commercial to LEO is the most important thing. IF NASA is fully running Leo access there will never be funds to make it cheaper or funds to expand into BEO. The fact that it has taken this long to get a space station with the shuttle tells me that. With commercial spaceflight non taxpayer funds are possible.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: kkattula on 07/13/2010 04:31 am
Direct have repeatedly stated that if you only want to launch once or twice a year, an SD HLV is not economical, just use EELV.

But if you pay the 1 to 2 billion fixed annual costs, the marginal cost of additional Jupiter launches is quite modest.

I ask:  what would the fixed costs be for sufficient EELV infrastructure to launch 600 mt of payload per year? (8 x 75 mt)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 05:05 am
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

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 any event, it seems that the amount of the contribution from NASA and the commercial companies for commercial crew has not yet been decided. This is why a request for information was recently made:

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=141492

Quote
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: alexw on 07/13/2010 07:42 am
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.
     a) For what value of the gravitational constant do you think VASIMR is an upper stage?

     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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: kkattula on 07/13/2010 08:31 am
...
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

Currently you're paying Shuttle infrastructure & operations costs plus CxP development costs.

Under this bill you'll be paying Shuttle infrastructure & operations costs plus HLV & Orion development costs.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: kkattula on 07/13/2010 08:59 am
...
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. 

Maybe not necessarily matching funding, but from the original COTS solicitation:

Quote
In order to maximize capability coverage, participants are expected to secure additional funds to supplement the NASA funding as shown above.

So skin in the game was essentially mandatory.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: alexw on 07/13/2010 09:02 am
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.

    It's a choice, and reasonable one. Read DIRECT's budget proposal -- which is, presumably, the smartest possible scenario we could imagine doing SDHLV. It's a serious proposal. Then decide which exploration technologies you are willing to cut or postpone until the 2020's. And contemplate what happens if NASA's budget is smaller in real terms a decade hence: big launcher, no DOD or commercial commonality or cost sharing, and few payloads beyond a 2-week-duration capsule.
        -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: kkattula on 07/13/2010 09:32 am
     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.
...
 

Depends how long they each take.  4 years each gets us 2018/19. Better than 2030's with FY2011!

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. 

IMO, HLV is the long pole for any architecture that needs an HLV. Lose that and the inertia in starting again is enormous. Keep it, and there are always options to do "something" worthwhile with it.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/13/2010 11:40 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/13/2010 11:49 am
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.

I think that's a good idea, mostly because I've been waiting impatiently to read those details for a couple of weeks anyway. ;)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/13/2010 12:22 pm
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.
What's 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. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/13/2010 12:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Martin FL on 07/13/2010 12:32 pm
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.
What's 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 wouldn't say "everyone".

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/13/2010 12:34 pm
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 thinking that when the paper hits the table in the committee room, it will still be warm from the printer.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/13/2010 01:03 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/13/2010 01:09 pm
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. 

I think that so many people have been disappointed so many times that they have started reflexively fearing the worst.  They are thus responding to their own subconscious worst-case scenarios. 

I, for one, have tried to respond only to the Orlando Sentinel's and NASAWatch's leaks.  As you have pointed out, these were of an early draft.  In any case, the Sentinel has a particular editorial slant on space policy stories that I have learnt, through bitter experience, to make their reporting less than 100% impartial.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: zerm on 07/13/2010 01:11 pm
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. 

BINGO! That's what some of us have been saying for quite a while now... and drawing a lot of heat for saying it too. You've hit the target OV-106
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/13/2010 01:11 pm
I wasn't talking about Chris or the people (myself included) speculating about this. I was talking about the Sentinel:

Quote from: Orlando Sentinel
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.

Also these guys:

Quote from: Orlando Sentinel
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.

Quote from: Orlando Sentinel
"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.

Some people have seen the draft of the bill, most haven't though. I haven't said otherwise.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: zerm on 07/13/2010 01:19 pm
*snip*
I, for one, have tried to respond only to the Orlando Sentinel's and NASAWatch's leaks.
*snip*

I've been reading your comments here and over there at that other site- very sensible. I, however, use caution when considering those "leaks" from those two sources. Recall the "leak" a week before Obama's April 15 KSC touch-and-go speech where he was supposed to announce a new launch vehicle and all sorts of other things- and that information was totally incorrect. Yet some here (not Chris)took it and ran way down the field with it, then were dissapointed.

Some Internet blogs and newspaper publications work VERY closely together. Chris is not one such outlet. I stick with Chris for my information... his leaks are better ;)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Proponent on 07/13/2010 01:51 pm
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.

That's exactly the scenario when you *least* want HLV.  Sitting around not flying, HLV's fixed costs will be a big drag on the budget.  HLV makes sense only if you've got a big budget, and that's unlikely.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Proponent on 07/13/2010 02:00 pm
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.
"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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/13/2010 02:18 pm
Well, okay.

We can wait for Chris to tell us what's in the bill. He is pretty impartial in his reporting.

But we can still have an opinion on what might go into the final bill.

A bill that drastically cuts spending for commercial crew and R&D and unmanned exploration is a bill I do not support. A bill which continues any sort of testing whatsoever for Ares I, I do not support.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/13/2010 02:28 pm
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.

A personal diatribe here about our nations laws, with the example of health reform: I just learned that in the next few years, I, as a sole proprietor, will have to give Office Depot a 1099 if I should purchase more than $600 worth of office supplies.  What the Hades does that have to do with health reform?  Yet it was apparently buried in the language of the bill.

What is buried in this particular bill?

About the inevitable WalMart comparisons.  Blairf makes some important observations about the complexities of such a huge organization, yet fails to notice the skill level of the vast majority of those workers.  In the case of Walmart, it is a very small minority of that workforce which has the necessary skills to manage the complexity.

OV probably has an intuitive feel for the numbers of votes which pertain to the WalMart program and the shuttle program; the level of education and skill required for each "program"; and the ability of our political leaders to manipulate each group for specific re-election purposes.  If our political system is not governed by purpose, fairness, and logic, who can we expect to win?

I have no conceptual problem in modeling and comparing WalMart and the shuttle program; I believe there is great insight to be gained in the study.

On one level, the problem continues to be a political one.  I see the space community fragmented by single issue players with sufficient power to manipulate the data to their purposes.  Even tho Congress and the special interests are also fragmented, they can play favoritism with resources that are not available to the members of the space community.  Simply put, the space community does not "hang together", as Ben Franklin put it.

The idealist in me suggests that Congress is paying better attention these daye to HSF, now that President has basically shoved it in their faces with some significant authority and pointed action.

My inner cynicist reads OV's remarks, "those details, or at least a general agreement between government and industry, on how much cost the government will cover and subsidize with respect to development is vitally important to budget requests" and shudders to think how this will play out.  It is the details of the various programs that have been wrongly implemented that have done the most proximate harm to our nation's HSF efforts.

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. 

Tighten up there, OV.  This is a sound observation, even  if it is a general one.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: TexasRED on 07/13/2010 04:20 pm
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)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/13/2010 04:24 pm
Yep, that's the latest, 99 pages.

Search "ET-94" for some interesting stuff.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: brihath on 07/13/2010 04:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: clongton on 07/13/2010 04:50 pm
We have been over this ground before. This reminds me of the email I get once a year every year that Mars is about to be the closest it will ever be to earth for another 30,000 years. Every year new people are drawn into it and unscrupulous people who know the event is years past will pass it on anyway just to see how many more people can be suckered into it. Stuff like this seems to create a life of its own in spite of clearly documented evidence to the contrary, similar to this post.

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.

FYI, in case you missed it, DIRECT's numbers, for (1) the Jupiter HLV performance, (2) for the operational and development costs incurred by it and (3) the long term impact on the lunar exploration program were confirmed by the Aerospace Corp as being in their own ballpark. This was in response to a direct charge to them from the Augustine Commission to investigate same. Three of us had to travel to Los Angeles to go over, explain *and prove* all our numbers with their respective experts. We passed their in-depth examination with flying colors. The Aerospace Corp result was reported back to the Augustine Commission which publically reported those results in the final public hearing. Transcripts are available if you care to go get them.

Now, to your points:

1. It's "CxP", not Cxp.

Quote
I have a feeling that those number maybe a bit too optimistic.

2. You are entitled to your "feelings" but you are not entitled to present them as if they were fact.

Quote
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.

3. You have no idea what you are talking about and haven't the slightest clue who the professionals (contractor, NASA and federal government) are that put the numbers together.

Quote
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.

Quote
If 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.

Quote
If we retain two separate workforces NASA and the EELV workforce with taxpayer money it is going to be extra expensive.

6. Based on what? It's less expensive to retain an existing experienced workforce thru lean times than it is to fire them and then try to replace them later will all new people who don't have any experience. That's common knowledge in the business world and is why it takes corporations a long time before they lay people off. A layoff in the business world usually doesn't happen for months after the business downturn so long as there is a reasonable prospect that the business volume will pick up again in a reasonable period of time. Successful corporations will retain as many of their employees as they possibly can thru lean times *specifically* so they don't have to replace them later with inexperienced replacements. It costs enormous amounts of capital to train a new workforce. I have been in that position and had to make those kinds of decisions. Apparently you have not.

Quote
If you reduce the flight rate of your HLV to once or twice a year, it will make the shuttle look cheap.

7. Whether you fly Shuttle or its HLV replacement once or twice a year or 3 or 4 times a year the total cost will not be that much different. The majority of the operational costs are not the launch vehicle; they are the personnel needed to prepare and launch the vehicle. You need the same number of people whether it's 1 launch per year or 10 launches per year. The cost of the vehicle is a tiny fraction of the overall infrastructure operational costs.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: TexasRED on 07/13/2010 04:52 pm
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.

And be evolved to lift ~150

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: psloss on 07/13/2010 04:57 pm
Yep, that's the latest, 99 pages.

Search "ET-94" for some interesting stuff.
It's kind of interesting, but we're still a long ways from enactment. 

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/13/2010 05:05 pm
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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 05:09 pm
Yep, that's the latest, 99 pages.

Search "ET-94" for some interesting stuff.

Here is the interesting stuff on page 20 related to ET-94 :

Quote
(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).
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/13/2010 05:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: David AF on 07/13/2010 05:15 pm
Thank goodness. Commonsense previals in this bill.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: DavisSTS on 07/13/2010 05:15 pm
Can a SD HLV evolve to lifting that level of mass?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: AndrewSTS on 07/13/2010 05:17 pm
Not perfect, but we can't afford perfect. Much better than the mess of FY2011 however!

Can this be approved in time? Will the President in his ultimate crazyness even sign it? This or CR, th e FY2011 is getting thrown out I assume?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/13/2010 05:21 pm
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.

It would be fine if the HLV funding was drawn from an exterior source to the agency. Then everyone would be satisfied and it would indeed be a compromise. But there I go dreaming.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/13/2010 05:23 pm
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.


Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Bill White on 07/13/2010 05:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/13/2010 05:26 pm
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/13/2010 05:26 pm
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.
     a) For what value of the gravitational constant do you think VASIMR is an upper stage?

     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




People continue to not understand DIRECT or the team behind it.


1. 8.4 billion to IOC. THIS WAS AN OVERESTIMATE! The analysis was back checked by areospace corp as well as others so its not "tainted" by MSFC if thats what your implying.
2. The team was very careful not to make any of the mistakes of CXP, the final product they have now is well rounded.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 05:27 pm
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

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). 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 05:27 pm
Can we please drop the Direct discussion and focus on this bill.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: DavisSTS on 07/13/2010 05:27 pm
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, I asked if a SD HLV could do it. I never said anything about Direct.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/13/2010 05:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/13/2010 05:29 pm
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.
"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?
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/13/2010 05:30 pm
No, I asked if a SD HLV could do it. I never said anything about Direct.

Ah, sorry. My bad.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/13/2010 05:31 pm
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)

For reference, here's the budget figures from this draft for FY2011 and FY2012. I've noted where they differ from the White House (WH) proposed budget:

FY2011:
$19B total (same as White House)

$3.99B Exploration total
$1.3B multi-purpose crew vehicle (must be based on Orion) (not in original WH proposal)
$1.9B Space Launch System (not in original WH proposal)
$75M exploration technology development (WH proposed ~1.2B, including flagship demonstrators, heavy-lift and propulsion systems technology, etc)
$215M Human research
$144M commercial cargo (WH proposed $312M)
$312M commercial crew development (WH $500M)
$44M robotic precursor studies and instruments (WH $125M)

$5.5B Space Operations total
$5B science total (all figures, including earth science, seem to be same as WH)

$805M aeronautics and space technology total
$579.6M aeronautics research
$225M space technology (WH $572.2M)

$145.8M education total
$6B cross-agency support programs

FY2012
$19.45B total

$5.24B exploration total
$1.4B multi-purpose crew vehicle
$2.65B Space Launch System
$437.3M Exploration Technology Development (WH ~$1.85B including exploration/flagship tech demos, heavy-lift and propulsion systems tech)
$215M Human research
$400M Commercial Crew (WH $1.4B)
$100M Robotic Precursor Instruments and Low-Cost Missions (WH $506M)

$4.23B Space operations total
$2.95B ISS operations and crew/cargo support
$1.19B Space and Flight Services

$5.248B Science total

$934.7M Aeronautics and Space Technology total
$584.7M Aeronautics Research
$450M space Technology (WH $1B)

$145.8M Education total
$3.19B cross-agency support programs total

FY2013 seems similar to FY2012
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/13/2010 05:32 pm
Yep, that's the latest, 99 pages.

Search "ET-94" for some interesting stuff.
It's kind of interesting, but we're still a long ways from enactment. 

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.


Thought (IMO): ET 94=First SDHLV core??
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/13/2010 05:32 pm
...
Talk to Ross.

Why?  What's he going to whisper in my ear?
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.
Right. DoD is going to tell a non-US-citizen details of projects that are almost certainly classified?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/13/2010 05:33 pm
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?

175 methinks. Talk to chuck ;)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: mr_magoo on 07/13/2010 05:34 pm
Well, there is a reason that Sally Ride and Augustine were complaining about R&D being neglected.   It's hard to get Congress to pay for it.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: jml on 07/13/2010 05:36 pm
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

J-3551SH?

2 5-Seg boosters, stretched tank, 5 SSME on core, 2nd stage with 5 J-2X, 3rd stage similar to second stage but with 1 J-2X.

(give or take an SSME or J-2x or two, and there'd be some challenges with human rating)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/13/2010 05:45 pm
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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/13/2010 05:47 pm
Regardless of whether you like FY2011 or not, this bill in this form will not accomplish what the Direct or Shuttle people want if the Administration takes a hostile stance, even if it becomes law. There is just way too much wiggle room, and allowances for technical leeway in the legal jargon here.

At least they didn't raid the science budget, as is usually done. The real crime is the removal of funds from exploration and new technology. If Congress wants to preserve the Shuttle option, they need to step up to the plate with some serious extra money. Otherwise, we end up with the worst of both worlds.

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/13/2010 05:50 pm
The numbers in the budget, if taken at face value, give an appropriate mix between development and operations.  In addition, to me, this looks to get back to the spiral development implementation. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 05:54 pm
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

Thanks for that info. You were right, they are also taking a serious hit too. But it's better to look at the numbers for FY 2012 and FY 2013 than FY 2011. FY 2011 is skewed because of the extension of the Shuttle. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 05:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/13/2010 05:57 pm

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/13/2010 06:05 pm

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: HMXHMX on 07/13/2010 06:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 06:12 pm

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.

Under the bill, it seems that a BEO Orion must also be ready for December 31, 2016. That seems a bit of an aggressive schedule to me.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/13/2010 06:13 pm

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.

Seriously, what did everyone expect?  The pie is only so big and not going to get any bigger.  The proposal within the Congress is not a complete and total denial of the the president's proposal. 

It really appears to be a compromise between both unrealistic extremes of "FY2011" and the "PoR". 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/13/2010 06:14 pm
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/NASA%20Rockefeller1.pdf
Chuck(Chuck Longton)--How do you & the rest of the Direct Team feel about the draft Senate Authorization Bill?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/13/2010 06:16 pm
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: M_Puckett on 07/13/2010 06:17 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 06:17 pm
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 know a lot more than I do on this. But why would Colorado and LM oppose it? Orion is now fully funded (not just as a CRV). Plus, under Constellation, Orion did not necessarelly have CRV duty. So they haven't lost anything. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/13/2010 06:18 pm

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.
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: marsavian on 07/13/2010 06:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/13/2010 06:20 pm
Seems like the pendulum is swinging back the other way again :o
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/13/2010 06:21 pm
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.
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.

Trouble is, we don't know yet what kind of HLV it will be, or if it will even be SDHLV. It could also be sidemount (which is way to expensive).
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/13/2010 06:22 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 06:23 pm

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.
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.

They are essentially doing a SD-HLV. The requirement of a minimum of 70mt to 100mt (that can be extended to 150mt) could be a Direct SD-HLV if NASA chooses to do so. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/13/2010 06:24 pm
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. 
Which is exactly why NASA doesn't need their own launcher.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/13/2010 06:28 pm
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.

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.

Lets add in a saftey margin for overruns or extra costs on these things, 2.1 billion. So we are at 9.4 billion for fy2011.

that leaves a TON for commercial crew, r&d and many other things
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 06:30 pm
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.

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

The HSF budget is about half of NASA's budget. So there isn't tons of money left with your budget figures.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/13/2010 06:32 pm
Don't forget ISS ops at about 3 billion per year
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: clongton on 07/13/2010 06:32 pm
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.
"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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/13/2010 06:33 pm

Dear Shoppers:

(5) A long-term goal for human exploration of
     space should be the eventual international exploration of Mars.

(6) Future international missions beyond low-Earth orbit should be
     designed to incorporate capability 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 conduct cis-lunar missions.

Sincerely,
Walmart


 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/13/2010 06:36 pm
IMO there is enough for alot of things. But here is where I cut things:
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/13/2010 06:40 pm
Right you are Jim. Will add in ISS:Divide up 8.4 billion over 4 years you get: 2.1 billons per year to build HLV. Thats it for SDHLV.

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.

Lets add in a saftey margin for overruns or extra costs on these things, 2.1 billion. So we are at 9.4 billion for fy2011. Add in ISS and you get 12.4 billion.

 Truthfully that leaves only: 7 billion extra. Increasing the budget to 20 billion per year would be nice, but I don't see it happening. So something has to go. Ofc, after fy 2011 STS is out of the picture :)

Want to reduce costs further? Remove NASA micromanagment for programs like: SDHLV, STS (if your going beyond 1 more flights).
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/13/2010 06:40 pm
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.

That is why you are not in charge.

1.  That is NASA's job

2.  This is more inline with NASA's charter vs an HLV

3.  any changes would slow the program.

4.  Then there is no need for an HLV.  The current HLV exists to keep people employed.

5.  no such thing
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 06:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/13/2010 06:48 pm
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Lars_J on 07/13/2010 06:49 pm
"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.

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)

Quote
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.

So know 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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/13/2010 06:50 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 06:51 pm
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...
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/13/2010 06:55 pm
That's a trick question, isn't it? Probably because, they didn't rely on Direct figures...

Maybe they got their estimates from the JSC study?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: HMXHMX on 07/13/2010 06:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/13/2010 06:57 pm
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...

What I'm wondering is why their figures are so much higher than DIRECT's. If the amount for the Space Launch System can be reduced and still meet the goals, then that frees up money for (arguably more important) items in the bill like exploration/space technology and crew transportation.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: mmeijeri on 07/13/2010 07:00 pm
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/13/2010 07:14 pm
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 would 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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: simonth on 07/13/2010 07:19 pm
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...

They relied on industry input and historic costs.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/13/2010 07:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 07:22 pm
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 (not BEO). 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 (see "minimum capability requirements" on page 27). But I might be reading this wrong.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: phantomdj on 07/13/2010 07:22 pm
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.

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.”

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.

NASA led the way in LEO launch vehicles.  Now it is time for commercial companies to step up and take over while NASA leads the way in heavy lift vehicles “priming the pump” until a successful business model can be seen for commercial companies to take over heavy lift in the future.

The Senate “compromise” is a step in that direction.  Not perfect but a step and much better than the Obama non-plan.  Have NASA build the heavy lift vehicle now.

If is a shame that this took so long. For most KSC space workers it will not happen in time.  KSC builds, tests and launches rockets which will not happen with a heavy lift until at least 2012.  A large number (800 - 1000) of the build and test engineers and technicians will be laid off in October with many more by the end of shuttle before heavy lift hardware is available to build test and stack.

USA is said to go from an 8800 person company to about 1500 - 2000.  Heavy lift may not come in time.  While the space program is not a jobs program it still employs people and these people have critical skills that will be lost (just like in the 1970’s) before heavy lift comes on board.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: clongton on 07/13/2010 07:25 pm
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)

Quote
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.

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.

I responded carefully to a question that had been posted - twice. I was careful in my choice of words. You didn't notice that and rushed to judgment and I can't help that. I stand by my statement. Please read carefully and stop reading things into what I said that are not there.

Quote
So know now 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.

That insult is not justified and I will gladly accept your apology.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/13/2010 07:27 pm
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.

I haven't done this myself yet, but it would probably be worthwhile to compare the Orion-related text to the wording in bills from prior years.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 07:32 pm
I don't believe that prior authorization bills (2005 and 2008) were this specific about Orion or the HLV.

1- Here is the current Senate 2010 NASA Authorization Proposed Bill:
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/NASA%20Rockefeller1.pdf

2- Here is the (enacted) 2008 NASA Authorization Bill:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6063enr.txt.pdf

3- Here is the (enacted) 2005 NASA Authorization Bill:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s1281enr.txt.pdf
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/13/2010 07:51 pm
Are we all having fun? :) Remember to keep calm and stay respectful. Lack of mod alerts suggests it's ok at the moment.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/13/2010 07:52 pm
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.
Absolutely!

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/13/2010 07:54 pm
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.


You have it backwards on this one.

You need primary capability from NASA. No substitutions please.
Commercial would be backup.

That primary capability has yet to be defined.
Do you see anyone pushing the reset button?










 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: RyanC on 07/13/2010 07:55 pm
The wording here:

Quote
(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.

The capability to lift the MCV (Orion) requirement makes me think that what we will get is a 100% inlined basic booster that does not have SRBs of any kind, but can lift 70 tons into orbit (Orion CSM plus some mission modules or fuel) on two stages. Basically think Saturn V INT-20 or INT-21.

Why? Because I suspect that NASA will never again let a human crew fly on anything less than an inlined system after two disasters in a row attributable to non-inlining (SRB joint burnthrough into ET; foam from ET striking Orbiter).

The growth targets to 150 tons to orbit can then be met by adding in the SRBs and adding a third stage to get the full up stack. Of course; this stack layout would not fly with humans on board it

I would not be surprised if the 5.5 segment SRBs that were being developed for Ares I make an appearance for the 150+ ton to orbit full up version.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/13/2010 07:55 pm
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.

How does incorporating the immediate construction of an HLV make the draft bill incorporate "Apollo style goal oriented missions" any more than the White House's proposal?

Here's what the draft bill says, which is pretty much identical to what the White House and Bolden have been talking about:
Quote
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

(well, mostly identical except that the bill slashes BEO technology funding in favor of HLV funding)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/13/2010 07:55 pm


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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 07:56 pm
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.
Absolutely!

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.

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). 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/13/2010 08:01 pm


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.


 

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: alexw on 07/13/2010 08:04 pm
I believe the ultimate bottom line is this:
...
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.
    "Unwilling or unable"? Do you seriously think that Boeing/LockMart/ULA would decline a contract to build a HLV?
    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.

Quote
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.
    -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 08:07 pm


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 right now 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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/13/2010 08:09 pm


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.




Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 08:12 pm


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.

The capabilty has to exist. It doesn't right now.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: DaveJSC on 07/13/2010 08:13 pm
I would like to mention I really like the push for the HLV in the bill, and the protection of shuttle, in case we need the backup plan. FY2011 has no backup plan.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Lars_J on 07/13/2010 08:15 pm
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.

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.  :)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: alexw on 07/13/2010 08:17 pm
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.
     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.
    The JUS is all-new tankage.
    Obviously DIRECT does design new software. You are not going to be flying an in-line vehicle on the existing software load, much less one with a second stage the PFS&BFS have no concept of.
    In fact, you are going to have to build mostly completely new avionics: with the possible exception of a few J-130X missions flown by cannibalizing the orbiters, you are not going to be building new AP-101S.

Quote
Quote
If 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.
     "Hundreds of millions of dollars" is in the noise on these timelines. Practically irrelevant.
      -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/13/2010 08:17 pm
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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/13/2010 08:17 pm
I believe the ultimate bottom line is this:
...
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.
    "Unwilling or unable"? Do you seriously think that Boeing/LockMart/ULA would decline a contract to build a HLV?
    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.

Quote
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.
    -Alex

Agree completely. Those with the purse strings don't want to commit, say to a advanced space propulsion craft. If they were truly serious they would not be playing the "commercial" card. I do not believe that they are serious about future manned exploration. There not interested in the basic dynamics or requirements for workforce or engineering. Its like their playing possum.

 

 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: RyanC on 07/13/2010 08:18 pm
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."
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 08:21 pm
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 also about to post that. It's subsection 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.

http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/13/2010 08:22 pm


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.


 


No you *both* have it wrong.


NASA should: Provide the HLV. In the immeadete future NASA should: Provide crew transport until commercial is ready. In future, Commercial should provide most crew and cargo transport except for things that you need the HLV (like large Intersolar EDS stacks like for mars).

A blend of both would be nice.

Back to the numbers,  they want 11.4 billion for HLV. Thats an awful lot more than DIRECT and it seems high for an inline........... How much do you want to bet its sidemount ;)

From my earlier post I had it at 12 something billion.

To drop that number: 1. Saftey margin was 2.1 extra billion. That money is purely in my estimates for overrun protection. Drop that to 1 billion.

2. Extend IOC of HLV to 5 years and orion to 5 years. If you do that you get (for fy 2011):
1.68 billion for SDHLV
.6 billion for orion
2.3 billion (assumed but could be much less) for remaining STS missions including 135
  3 billion for ISS
1 Billion for saftey margin.

Total HSF for fy 2011: 8.58 billion dollars


For fy 2012:

Total HSF would be: 6.28 billion

Add in an upper stage program like JUS and you get (assuming 2 billion per year for 2 and 1/2 years): 8.28 billion. Program would begin in fy 2012

With STS over you could also increase funding in fy 2012 for both Orion and SDHLV (up from 1.68 and .6 respectivley) in order to speed IOCs. IOC would then be 2016 or 2015. Which is fine because IMO, with ISS around I don't see the reason in doing BEO before 2016. Also gives time for R&D to produce new tech for the mission.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/13/2010 08:24 pm
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. 

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/13/2010 08:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: RyanC on 07/13/2010 08:27 pm
Don't need to resurrect F-1A to get a kerolox engine.

It's called RS-84; got cancelled in 2005; and while it isn't as powerful as holy F-1A; it's significantly more powerful than SSME or RS-68.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/13/2010 08:28 pm
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."

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"?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 08:28 pm
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. 

Although that would encourage the commercial providers, it wouldn't be "to the maximum extent possible"...
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 08:30 pm
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.

They weren't talking about the HLV. The were debating who should be ferrying crew to the ISS and which program should be the backup plan. The answer per NASA's charter is commercial crew if it is available.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/13/2010 08:30 pm
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.

Your right. They are going to continue to buy Russian engines. Are we still talking about general welfare? For who?

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: clongton on 07/13/2010 08:31 pm

Now you are just getting into semantics. Unless you can tell me what an HLV would 'lift' that would not be considered a 'payload'?

No, it's not semantics. I carefully chose the words specifically to make the distinction. What they need to lift is of course classified. It is designed but not built because there is, as yet, no LV capable of lifting it. But a DIRECT style HLV could do the job.

Quote
And thanks for the spelling correction. It is unfortunately something that I frequently need help with.  :)

Depending on the browser you use, you can turn on a spell checker. At home I use Foxfire with the spell checker. Elsewhere it's usually IE so I compose in Word, fix the spelling, then copy/paste into the reply window. It's cumbersome but it works. :)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/13/2010 08:33 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/13/2010 08:34 pm
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/13/2010 08:37 pm
Who here thinks the senate bill HLV number is so high because the LV is sidemount?

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's sidemount, but imo they're using the JSC study for their cost estimates.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 08:38 pm
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?

The 150mt evolution possibility makes me think that they were not thinking of sidemount. But I suspect that a case could be made that sidemount could be converted into a 150mt inline version.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/13/2010 08:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: clongton on 07/13/2010 08:41 pm
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?

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.

But that's just me "reading tea leaves", when it might actually be hickory.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: robertross on 07/13/2010 08:45 pm
Are we all having fun? :)
Oh yes.

The important thing is that there is movement on this, and that we *may* yet avoid something stupid.

I have my fingers crossed.

Quote
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.

looking forward to it!
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 08:51 pm
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 that 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 in 2017, 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.   So the question is, is there enough funding in this bill for such payloads?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: 2552 on 07/13/2010 08:55 pm
Increasing the budget to 20 billion per year would be nice, but I don't see it happening.

Quote from: NASA Rockefeller1.pdf, page 15
SEC. 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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/13/2010 08:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/13/2010 09:01 pm
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 main reason there is so much scuffle is because they don't have a  plan and because of that it creates confusion and uncertainty. Leadership would mean resetting the process. The bill is not clear and its not meant to be clear. Congress is dog paddling as fast as they can. Its not that we are not capable of building a practical LEO/HLV, there's no leadership to do it or one that cares.     



 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 09:02 pm
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.

I didn't miss 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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/13/2010 09:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 09:07 pm
Increasing the budget to 20 billion per year would be nice, but I don't see it happening.

Quote from: NASA Rockefeller1.pdf, page 15
SEC. 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.

The rate of inflation is higher in the aerospace industry. So those amounts aren't really increases if you factor in that higher inflation.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/13/2010 09:15 pm
...
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.
OK. Then we buy or get provided Atlas V and CST-100. End of story.

Rest is an incompetent jobs program. Why do we need the arsenal system to inflate this 100x with earmarks for Florida, Alabama, Utah, Texas, ...

Now it would be different if the space cadets really want to continually reach beyond LEO. We can do this ... but we can't have our 'jobs program' at the same time.

"Choose. But choose wisely." "He chose ... poorly."
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 09:16 pm
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.

Ideally you would time it such that your HLV is ready when you are ready to do BEO as Augustine had done.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: RyanC on 07/13/2010 09:18 pm
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.

Quote
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"?

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 09:31 pm
Ryan,

Thanks for your comments. But in your opinion what should the HLV be doing from 2017 until you start BEO in the 2020s? 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/13/2010 09:33 pm
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!

Does the bill say that putting a man on the Moon is a priority? All I read was ensuring capability to explore cislunar space, not necessarily the surface.

Page 22
Quote
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.

Guess I was wrong on that, but from what I can tell the target destinations are not that different from Obama's NSP, which means a Mars mission ultimately, which will be expensive as hell with current technology.

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.

I wonder what that will do to your mission mass if your target is Mars, like the current national space policy dictates.

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).

I'm not sure deep space radiation and radiation from a Navy warship's reactor are the same, but I'm not a nuclear physicist. NASA hasn't researched better shielding so far, because they haven't been tasked with something that would require it.

Edit to add.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: RyanC on 07/13/2010 09:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/13/2010 09:42 pm
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.
Of course, no money to build those payloads. That money was just cut out here.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: mr_magoo on 07/13/2010 09:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 09:48 pm
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.

1- Isn't there already a long term plan for a Bigelow type module to be attached to the ISS in the FY2011 Budget documents (which wouldn't need an HLV)?

2- The propellant depot idea is interesting. But I always though of propellant depots as something that commercial companies would be doing. Perhaps, both the HLV and commercial providers can do it as Direct has suggested in its presentations. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: clongton on 07/13/2010 09:49 pm
If the eventual goal is BEO, whether lunar, NEO, Phobos or Mars, a Skylab-size Gateway Station at EML-1 might be a worthy project. Just musing.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: RyanC on 07/13/2010 09:51 pm
Of course, no money to build those payloads. That money was just cut out here.

Considering how the HLV isn't going to fly before 2017; and that this authorization is good only out to 2015; the money for Skylab-sized modules or the propellant depot test can be put into the FY2014 or FY2015 budget after the HLV Program is moving ahead and has gotten past the initial hurdles of "oh god, we need money, PILES OF MONEY and lots of it now!"

Either that, or you can bury it in the HLV program as "instrumented large volume pressurized module" as part of the test program for the HLV -- because you are going to have to launch one or two to prove their reliability before we put a man on it; and otherwise that 70 tons to LEO lift capability is going to go wasted.

So why not put a cheap bare-bones pressurized module in?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/13/2010 09:56 pm
It boils down to this:

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.

We have the "do it right crowd" - they break down the problems, task demo's to prove solutions, then with the demonstrated  solutions define ways to deal with things like radiation/propulsion/..., and then build what is needed not what is desired.

What the battle is over is "convenience".

When you have a down economy you can't afford "convenience".

You must be pragmatic.

Pragmatism means tight specifications. Tight execution to spec.

Not ambiguous. This is too f'ing ambiguous.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: RyanC on 07/13/2010 09:57 pm
I think you left out colonizing Mars by 2025.

I'm all for landing on/colonizing Mars; but I'd push the early mars landings out to 2030ish. Get some experience back in BEO operations with lunar operations, both cislunar transit and long term stays on the surface of the moon; and then aim for Mars with the experience gained. (This was the ultimate goal of Bush I and II's space visions).

Quote
HLV would help with that too.    How many wishes does the HLV grant?   I need to plan my mission accordingly.

Many wishes a HLV does grant. I've read papers proposing using a Saturn V to land multiple small landers on Mars, or two really big ones; using Saturn V with a high energy Centaur kick stage to send really huge payloads out to the outer planets like pluto, etc.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/13/2010 10:06 pm

So why not put a cheap bare-bones pressurized module in?


Because there is no need for it or place for it.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: MP99 on 07/13/2010 10:09 pm
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.

Quote
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).

My initial thought was this must mean that the ET94-based HLV test would be side mount. I can easily see how ET-94 can be kept ready to fly another Shuttle mission whilst also being prepared to fly on a side-mount HLV.

But, I couldn't see how ET-94 could be kept ready for a Shuttle flight whilst also being prepared for an in-line test flight, until I remembered this from Chris's article - the Proto-Demo! :-

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sd-hlv-assessment-highlights-post-shuttle-solution/

(http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/A171.jpg)


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/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/A8.jpg)


I really don't think we can tell anything from the details in this document.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: RyanC on 07/13/2010 10:16 pm
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.

Excuse me; but nothing about what I am proposing is radically new.

We know how to fly people through space outside earth's magnetic field and provide them with sufficient radiation protection that their health is not impaired or threatened by radiation during cislunar coast or on the lunar surface. In fact; the LEV/SEV that NASA has been testing during D-RATS the last couple of years even features a special 'radiation cellar' where the astronauts can shelter in place; surrounded by a water jacket. Even outside the storm cellar, the LEV/SEV offers significantly improved radiation protection over the LEM of Apollo.

We know how to build heavy launch vehicles; we did it in the 1960s with the Saturn V series; and then again in the 1980s with the Shuttle stack.

We know how to build fairly high ISP engines; such as nuclear thermal rockets or electric thrusters -- we've either test fired them at Jackass Flats or in satellites in orbit now. In fact; DOD even developed a Nuclear Thermal Rocket in the 1980s as part of SDI that would have offered a bit more ISP than NERVA, but weighed significantly less.

We've kept people in zero gee for up to three months in the 1970s (Skylab); and returned them to earth with little ill effects other than the usual bone loss from zero gravity; and then followed this up with ISS Expeditions lasting six months in the 2000s.

I could go on some more...but you get my point. This is not the 1960s anymore; we know for example that you can land on the moon without disappearing in several feet of lunar dust (that was a fear in the early design phase for Apollo), and we have documented recordings of the environmental conditions on the Moon and Mars from either manned missions or unmanned (Viking, Surveyor, the Mars Rovers, etc).

It is just a matter of now applying the advances in all sorts of technology that we have made since the late 1960s when Apollo's design was essentially frozen.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 10:21 pm
What about R&D on in-space propulsion? We will need that for an asteroid visit.

I guess we could do an Appollo 8 mission first (before visiting an asteroid) as others have suggested.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: renclod on 07/13/2010 10:24 pm
It's probably a done deal for NASA and Obama too. They achieve one of their main aims, killing Ares I.

Where does it say in this draft, "killing Ares I" ? it is not explicit, not implicit either.
"Space Launch System" not "launcher".

The draft does not say 70 mT and crew vehicle launch requirements must be met concurrently [in a single launch].

Even more , notice the use of particle or :

"10 (C) The capability to serve as a cargo
11 backup for supplying and supporting ISS cargo
12 requirements or crew delivery requirements"


Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: RyanC on 07/13/2010 10:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: M_Puckett on 07/13/2010 10:38 pm
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?

The healthcare bill was an authorization bill.  I think Mr. Muncy is wrong on this one.

Most Authorization bills recieve unanimous consent but I do not see anywhere Senate rules require it.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: NASAJim on 07/13/2010 10:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/13/2010 10:47 pm
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.

They also say former Orion but they don't actually cancel it. So I am not sure that is conclusive. In any event, the fact that they don't insist that it be continued is more telling. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: mr_magoo on 07/13/2010 10:52 pm
RIght.  To save it at this point they must insist.  And they don't.    But it looks like SRMs are the future.

Has anyone seen any "close the gap" rhetoric or is that yesterday's talking point? 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 07/13/2010 11:09 pm
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.

Quote
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"?

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.

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.

In terms of water usage, it is about 3.5 liters of water consumed per astronaut by through both drink and food.  So for a crew of 4 it is 14 liters of water per day(about 3.6 gallons of water). For a 30 day trip you are talking around 110 gallons of water that somehow need to be stored in a tank.  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. 110 gallons is larger than most household water heaters.  If instead you had 15 days worth of water on hand, you would only need 55 gallons of water (about the size of a midsized water heater). It would mass around 462 pounds. Even if your water recycling equipment massed 100 pounds you would be able to carry 363 pounds of other stuff and you need not be limited by a 30 day time period (i.e. if you carry more filters/supplies you can stay longer than 30 days).
 
In addition you may need even more water for the life support system to cover oxygen usage since most likely the primary oxygen system will use water for oxygen generation. So that is .84kg of water per person per day. So far a crew of 4 that is 3.36kg a day or 100.8kg for 30.  So you need 26 more gallons of water for a total of 136 gallons.

In terms of oxygen, actually CO2 removal is more important than oxygen generation. The longer the mission the more and more LIOH cartages you will need. This is why regenerative co2 scrubbers are so useful and why getting the oxygen out of the CO2 molecule is so useful for extending on life support.

This is why closed life support is so important. The masses and volumes of supplies needed for the crew can quickly get out of hand. Imagine if instead of 30 days it was a 3 month trip?

Finally although you can resupply, you have to take in consideration cost of resupply and the possibility it could fail. Finding water on the moon is a god send becuse no future lunar base will need water or oxygen for lifesupport shipped constantly from earth. The technologies of fy2011 are an attempt to make BOE flight more capable and affordable.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/13/2010 11:37 pm
"Vampires have their stakes and werewolves have their silver bullets, but there is nothing man has yet devised that can kill a government program." -- Bob Crumm

NOofC mentioned something that seems to have escaped notice: any future system we devise really should be able to cycle in and out of a low activity/cost mode with minimal effort. It happened twice with the Shuttle, but we didn't save any money when it did happen because of the large fixed costs. If NASA must build a HLV, it must be able to handle down periods gracefully and cheaply (say in the case of a fatal flaw in Orion that takes a couple of years to fix).

That was much of the rationale behind the escape from sunk assets that FY2011 offers, but seems to be fundamentally incompatible with this Senate bill and the infrastructure it attempts to preserve.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/13/2010 11:39 pm
Has anyone seen any "close the gap" rhetoric or is that yesterday's talking point? 

I'm betting you won't hear it from any congressmen that support this bill. "The gap" was apparently just a convenient talking point, not a problem to be solved/reduced.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: RyanC on 07/14/2010 12:01 am
Quote from: nooneofconsequence
Cite me the study. Where's the animal testing that confirms the study. You're pulling this out of your a$$.

You want animal testing?

We carried out testing on 24 subjects from 21 Dec 1968 to 19 Dec 1972; and testing involved the following subjects:

Al Worden
Alan Bean
Alan Shepard
Buzz Aldrin
Charles Duke
David Scott
Dick Gordon
Edgar Mitchell
Eugene Cernan
Frank Borman
Fred Haise
Harrison Schmitt
Jack Swigert
James Irwin
Jim Lovell
John Young
Ken Mattingly
Michael Collins
Neil Armstrong
Pete Conrad
Ronald Evans
Stuart Roosa
Tom Stafford
William Anders

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.

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.

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.


Quote
You 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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: zerm on 07/14/2010 12:07 am
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.

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 ;)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: KEdward5 on 07/14/2010 12:17 am
I know you're attempting to be humorous Zerm, but you're only managing to sound patrionizing.

Do you honestly expect to see Ares I launching from 39B sometime in the future?

(By the way I do like your posts, I'm just not sure you appreciate there's very few Ares haters, and very few Ares huggers. There's a lot of "I don't care what vehicle, so long as it's soon" people).
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: clongton on 07/14/2010 12:32 am

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

If you moved those side pods under the tank and made no other changes, then you would realize an immediate 5% increase in IMLEO. But then it would be (OMG) an "inline".
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: RyanC on 07/14/2010 12:36 am
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.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: jongoff on 07/14/2010 12:55 am
Ryan,

Thanks for your comments. But in your opinion what should the HLV be doing from 2017 until you start BEO in the 2020s? 
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

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.  There are already plenty of solid concepts out there for EELV-launched depots that have tons of capacity, and can be built based on flight-proven systems.  For just the cost of your HLV launch alone you could develop and launch 2-3 generations of depots on EELVs.

This is a solution desperately searching for a problem.  A nice repeat of the mistakes of the early Shuttle era.  What could possibly go wrong?

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/14/2010 12:58 am

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.
What was the distribution of the energies? Were the events proton's, stripped helium nucleus, gamma's, neutrons? Secondary or primary.

They all shield differently - sometimes at different energy levels.


Oh, and some studies claim as little as 0.1 REM of exposure at commercial jet airliner altitudes can result in highly accelerated lymphomas. I don't accept the study - but European medical societies do, that say more than 100's of individuals got terminal cancer this way ...

OK, lets just write that off ...

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.

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.
Actually,  certain plastics make for very good solar wind radiation shielding (protons). Metal actually intensifies radiation trapped in the Van Allen's.

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.

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.


Quote
You 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'.
The X-15 flew 199 flights - each of them experimental.

Some experimental equipment has been used thousands of times, in various incarnations. Like Shuttle, we learn more each time. But no,
they are all still experimental. Like a pet snake - every time you fly, it may bite.

Don't fool yourself. An astro on STS-1 and one on STS-133 has the same courage. They know it. It's not the case that Grandma's going to fly soon.

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?

That's not the point. We've learned a lot. But we are still learning.

Why we do formal science & engineering. And even then ... we still get things "mostly right". Its humbling. Calls for more not less professionalism.

That is what I find lacking. All we have here is political gotchas in a circle jerk game.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: jongoff on 07/14/2010 12:59 am
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.

Ryan, it isn't just a question of capability but of cost, and particularly opportunity cost.  What other dozens of useful projects would have to be sacrificed to keep your HLV busy?  Myopic.

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: clongton on 07/14/2010 01:06 am
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. I personally believe that the HLV is the right vehicle to do that but it's not the only way. We could do it with only EELV's, although I believe it would take longer and ultimately cost more. The point is that we do not yet see a mission for this vehicle and that is something I would like to see. Spending billions just because we can is not the right reason to spend it. In spite of this being America, we do not have cash to just throw around. It has to be *for* something or it should be spent on something else that is. If CxP or something like it is not going to be pursued, I want to know what the HLV is for. I want to know the mission it will be used for. Otherwise what we have here is the opposite pole of the Obama FY2011 non-mission budget proposal. Not good. At least CxP had a goal - a mission. It was a lot of money but we knew what it was being spent *for*. Both this and Obama's FY2011 budget proposal are utterly devoid of a stated purpose. That makes me nervous.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/14/2010 01:09 am

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.
So define for me the cutoff point based on a formalism.

Hey, I don't mind a near term development plan. But what if you do something that costs so much to operate ... that you shut it down immediately.

Do you really want to be screwed like that?

Why not have something that when you can afford more, you do more.

When you can't, you do a little less.

Then you don't rush to cancellation.

All the Cx fantasy vehicles have the same stupid cost profile.

We must do better on operating/fixed costs. None of Nelson's bill does any of that.

ULA and Space-X do deal with reducing operating/fixed costs. How come we can't leverage that?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Bill White on 07/14/2010 01:11 am
I would use a Jupiter 130 sized HLV to deploy an EML Gateway and a large reusable lunar lander. But hey, that's just me. ;-)

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: simonbp on 07/14/2010 01:14 am
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...
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/14/2010 01:15 am
It's threatening to get a bit roudy on here. Avoid the temptation, or lose your post (which I know is annoying, but I'll keep this civil at all costs). Guess what, no plan is going to have the support of everyone, so respect other people's opinions. If you don't agree with them, present yours without calling the other person an "a$$" - ok? Good!

Meanwhile, on the latest SD HLV article, only one element of a 2,600 word article has a contradiction on my draft, so holding to get it right via sources. Will go on tomorrow (midday) now. Will run a processing update article for Discovery and Endeavour (remember those ladies?) instead within the next hour.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: simonbp on 07/14/2010 01:25 am
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...
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/14/2010 01:29 am
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...
Tell me about Gemini's science product?

Or Ares I-X?

How do you improve logistical systems ... and generate a science product??
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/14/2010 01:41 am


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.

1.  why?  there is enough room now

2.  What bigger experiments?  There is still empty spaces in the LAB
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/14/2010 01:45 am
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...
Then have them do a study  ... define missions & requirements ... pass to NASA ... have them bid out RFP/RFQ ... vendors respond with LV etc.

Otherwise how do you know ... you can even do it with SLS ... let alone if it is the right choice.

We've got to  chose more wisely. Not fund SLS blindly because it feels good.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 07/14/2010 01:53 am
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.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: simonbp on 07/14/2010 02:39 am
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...

Quote
Or Ares I-X?

Which wasn't really necessary, and only advanced a LV that has now been canceled.

Quote
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...
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/14/2010 02:48 am
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.

Quote
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.

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.


That's why you need to standardize your booster configurations to be reliable as well as cost effective to the pad. You could easily have a Boeing CST-100, Orion or an HLV at anytime.

 

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jorge on 07/14/2010 03:16 am
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...

You're going to need to produce extraordinary references to back up extraordinary claims like that. Mercury was not capable of either EVA or rendezvous; the additional Mercury flights would not have contributed to those objectives. Had those objectives been pushed back to LEO Apollo flights, the Apollo 1 fire would have pushed the first landing well out of the 60s.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: sdsds on 07/14/2010 03:19 am
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.

I am not intrinsically an HLV guy at all.  Rather, I have been unwillingly dragged to it because there are mission goals I want NASA to achieve, and the most affordable[1] way to achieve those goals is to deploy the spacecraft for each of those missions as the payload of a single launch vehicle.

Even though commercial crew transport to LEO is undoubtedly the way of the future,[2] at least one mission goal includes crew members  going BEO, so IMHO NASA needs a full function Orion and needs the HLV to be crew-rated.

ISS extension, commercial crew, HLV, Orion -- NASA can't pursue all of these at once.  So how to choose?  It comes down to that definition of "affordable."

[1] An effort is affordable for NASA if Congress will be compelled to fund it.  Single-launch HLV missions are thus "affordable."  Achieving the same mission goals through multiple EELV launches -- even though it may cost less -- is not affordable.

[2] Commercial crew transport to LEO is inevitable.  It will happen with our without help from NASA.  Strangely, however, it is not affordable:  Congress won't appropriate much funding for NASA to support it.

N.B. I personally wish Congress behaved differently.  Probably Dr. Griffin did too!  ;)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/14/2010 03:26 am
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.

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 ;)
1. Ares 1 never should have existed, thats the bottom line

2. Ares 1 is totally dead per this bill. There is no "leave the launcher decision up to NASA" because Congress no longer trusts NASA to not try to cancel or delay or otherwise muck up things. Part of this is a result of CXP part of it is a result of Bolden/Garver's Obama yes man attitude.


3. Future vehicle may or may not use Ares 1 stuff. 5 seg is dead, IMO, per ATK negotiations and j2x will maybe be saved due to sunk cost issues. Personally, j2x is another waste of money that should never  have happened. But if anything from Ares 1 "has" to be used, I would rather it be j2x than 5 seg.


4. Ares 1 was a waste of time and money: Ares 1 should never have existed.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/14/2010 03:41 am
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.

1.  The bill describes a multi-purpose crew transportation vehicle based on Orion.

2.  It calls for beyond LEO exploration to begin by the end of 2016, which presumabely could possibly require something more than just this Orion-ish vehicle.

3.  The bill allows it to be used by others, with other payloads.

4.  The bill still has technology development activities.  Everyone was so sure that R&D only was going to allow us to "explore" anywhere and everywhere in very short amoutn of time.  It was the "study it and it will come mentaility" in my opinion.  This, and only to a certain extent, is a build it and it will come mentaility that seems to closely mirror the "spiral development" that I have heard you promote as well. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/14/2010 03:46 am
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.

Quote
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.

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.


Have you read the bill that is available?  Obviously not. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Seattle Dave on 07/14/2010 03:50 am
I'm happy with the bill, although it's a shame the extension of shuttle is all but gone now, with only the hope of adding flights, which we all know isn't going to happen. The bonus is a realistic HLV from shuttle legacy. The five year study in the FY2011 was beyond rediculous and smacked of it never going to happen.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: STS Tony on 07/14/2010 03:56 am
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jorge on 07/14/2010 03:58 am
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?

No, CR is appropriations, this is authorization.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/14/2010 04:01 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/14/2010 04:03 am
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...
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.

One possible plan was to  use the FTD for EELV launch/transport of Node 4 to ISS. But the cost of losing Node 4 with an untested transfer vehicle  would also be a waste.

Aerocapture also might  be something you'd  like to repeatedly try - there may be interesting effects dependent on entry altitude/attitude/velocity (plasma effects). You get one shot on Mars.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: GClark on 07/14/2010 04:29 am
@clongton:

Umm, I think you need to go back and re-read the FTD presentations.

FTD-1 In-Space Propulsion is baselined to not only demo in GEO, but go to Mars.  It is supposed to co-orbit with Deimos and Phobos and then (margins & budget permitting) return to Earth.  It has mass (albeit limited - 10kg + 20% margin = 12kg) for instrumentation.  Sounds like science to me.  Recall that DS1, a technology demonstrator, did rather well with a basically non-science payload.

FTD-4 AEDL states flat-out that a demo at Earth is not worth the expenditure.  It is a flat-out Mars mission, either Aeroassist orbit capture or Aeroassist landing.  This one is somewhat more nebulous, as they want to wait for the results of the 2 remaining IRVE shots and more lab work.

V/R,
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/14/2010 04:40 am
One interesting point about commercial cargo capability is that it talks at section 404 about soft-landing on land of cargo.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: HMXHMX on 07/14/2010 05:26 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 07/14/2010 05:30 am
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 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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/14/2010 05:46 am
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...

Actually, if you read through the FTD documents, they actually propose exactly what you describe. For example, the propulsion FTD has propulsion technology tests as its primary mission, but would also transport science payloads. The in-space propellant depot FTD could potentially have some sort of materials science payload. The inflatable module on the ISS would of course have a number of associated human research experiments. The aerocapture FTD would have a secondary payload delivering a simple ISRU testbed or robot on Mars.

Presumably such science payloads would be lower budget than typical, though, considering the inherent risk of utilizing a new technology in a mission-critical role. It's essentially analogous to a higher-budget version of the Deep Space 1 mission.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Proponent on 07/14/2010 06:18 am
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.

Conducting studies is easy, and a galaxy of them has been produced in recent years.  But where's the commitment to fund any thing that comes out of a study?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: kkattula on 07/14/2010 09:01 am
Assume something close to this draft bill passes both houses, with no real dissent.
Unlikely Obama will veto it. Not worth the political capital it would cost.

The Administration is going to look a bit weak. Does Bolden fall on his sword?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/14/2010 09:07 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: marsavian on 07/14/2010 09:29 am
I believe the ultimate bottom line is this:
...
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.
    "Unwilling or unable"? Do you seriously think that Boeing/LockMart/ULA would decline a contract to build a HLV?
    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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: marsavian on 07/14/2010 09:31 am
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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/14/2010 09:35 am
It will allow him to regain some without loss of face which his advisors made him lose

Perhaps, but I'm not sure how much that would help. The people that hate his guts won't forget what he tried to do.

Edit to phrase it better
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Bill White on 07/14/2010 11:54 am
The President proposes but Congress disposes.

There is a book out there, "Spaceflight and the Myth of Presidential Leadership" and the following is from a "Library Journal" review at Amazon dot com:

Quote
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.

As this book was published in 1997 I suppose we can now edit "For over 30 years" to read "For over 40 years"

Link:

http://www.amazon.com/Spaceflight-Presidential-Leadership-Roger-Launius/dp/0252066324

The following sentence (from that same review) seems particularly spot on:

Quote
. . . 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 . . .
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/14/2010 12:44 pm
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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/14/2010 12:53 pm
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.

Agreed. Obama has carte blanche. Makes no difference to him either way.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/14/2010 01:03 pm

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/14/2010 01:30 pm

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.

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: phantomdj on 07/14/2010 01:40 pm
I believe the ultimate bottom line is this:
...
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.
    "Unwilling or unable"? Do you seriously think that Boeing/LockMart/ULA would decline a contract to build a HLV?
    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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: HappyMartian on 07/14/2010 02:02 pm

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!
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Mark S on 07/14/2010 02:05 pm

...........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.


These kinds of posts make me crazy (or maybe just crazier).

Q: What are you going to use Orion for?
A: Anything we need to do in space that requires a manned presence.

You know, the same kinds of things that Shuttle has been doing for the past 30 years?  Plus BEO exploration missions, of course. 

Also it may or may not be called "Orion", the Draft Bill refers to it as the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle.

Quote
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.

Sec 303 (b):
Quote
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.

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.

Mark S.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/14/2010 02:13 pm
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.

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.   
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: phantomdj on 07/14/2010 02:13 pm

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!

I agree we have done a lot in LEO and it was a little hyperbole on my part. I am just frustrated that it has been 38 years since humans have been BEO.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: HappyMartian on 07/14/2010 02:16 pm
Mark S, you are right! So relax and enjoy. Good things seem to be happening. Some folks are worried, some are confused, some are angry, and some have a mixed bag of feelings...

I don't care if they call it Orion or something else, as long as it is capable and robust. I like your above comment, "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."

Cheers!

Edited.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: MP99 on 07/14/2010 02:17 pm
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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/14/2010 02:27 pm

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.



Well no, not really a valid point.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/14/2010 02:30 pm
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)?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Mark S on 07/14/2010 02:35 pm
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

Thanks Martin (and HappyMartian).  I actually like the MPCV designator.  It really stresses the fact that this vehicle must be fully capable and flexible, not a single-purpose design (CEV, CRV, taxi, etc).

When paired with the baseline capacity of the SLS launcher (75 tons!), this vehicle will be a real workhorse for cargo delivery, on-orbit assembly, observatory servicing, and exploration missions.

I agree that there are signs that things are getting better.  But after the past several years of events, I know not to get my hopes up too high.  I'm keeping my fingers crossed, though...

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: phantomdj on 07/14/2010 02:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/14/2010 02:47 pm
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)?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: HMXHMX on 07/14/2010 02:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/14/2010 02:50 pm
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)?

They won't be.  They will be under development and construction. 

The reason it is not valid, is because the one month/ six month certification delta is not a driver.  A "reason to exist" is not valid when the main function of Orion is a different mission and commercial vehicles can perform the duty of CRV with not a significant amount of additional effort. 

Again, if they are going to transport crew, that means bringing them home too at the end of mission.  If they have to be there to bring them home, then they can be a CRV too.  It is illogical to send up another crew and vehicle to bring somebody home and send up another vehicle, unmanned, to perform the role of CRV. 

I hear people all the time talking about "cost" and being lean, etc.  Yet some one here propose the scenerio above, which is excessive and will lead to a concept of operations that will drive cost unnecessarily.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: phantomdj on 07/14/2010 02:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/14/2010 02:56 pm
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.

Quote
I am not sure what you mean by shake-down cruises. Do you mean like an Apollo 8 flight?

I have identified three cis-lunar missions that Orion could carry out without a mission module or with a vestigial mission module (basically an Orion bolted onto the top of the EDS to act as an orbital & consumables stowage module):

1) Trans-lunar free-return fly-around (BEO life-support, rad shielding & TPS test; best uncrewed);

2) Apollo 8 redux (lunar orbit, best done at the end of December 2018 for obvious reasons);

3) EML pathfinder (insert to EML-2 halo before transferring to LLO).

Only the first would be suitable for the Orion without an EDS with the fuel capacity to perform orbital insertion burns.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: phantomdj on 07/14/2010 02:58 pm

They won't be.  They will be under development and construction. 


I would hope both could be flying before 2020.  Test flights for both by 2016-2018.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/14/2010 03:00 pm
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

Thanks for the link Chris!
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/14/2010 03:00 pm
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.


With a sufficiently sized launcher and a large enough service module, you wouldn't really need an EDS if the mass is relatively small.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: TexasRED on 07/14/2010 03:10 pm
I think this "Orion derived" is just high level talk for using Orion with whatever mods are needed. Especially with language about utilizing existing contracts, etc. Since Orion doesn't fully exist yet, any vehicle "derived" from Orion could just be called Orion still IMO.

Also, with earlier events pointing to the Orion CRV just being the first couple of Block 0 vehicles, it lines up with the bill language that the administrator may use the first test flights to go to ISS (before the 2016 date of full capacity).  They also use a shall statement for saying the crew vehicle must be able to take crew to ISS as an alternative to commercial, which is another capability Orion has. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/14/2010 03:17 pm
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).
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/14/2010 03:21 pm
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.


Thanks for you answer. Under the bill, I don't believe that there is a block I capsule anymore. It seems to be a BEO capsule from the outset.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/14/2010 03:32 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: HMXHMX on 07/14/2010 03:40 pm
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.

I believe your observation about OML commonality is correct; I speculate Blue Origin was thinking this way and certainly SpaceDev was several years ago (no more).  Myself, I was thinking of passenger count, internal volume for suborbital hijinks, etc.  But we run the risk of getting off-topic.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: HMXHMX on 07/14/2010 03:47 pm
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).


"Token" may have been the wrong word – but it wasn't one-for-one matching.  I was thinking principally of SpaceX, since I've seen comments that suggest it was one-to-one and I am confident it wasn't.  Kistler always had very high overall budgets and of course they were unable to raise any substantive money to move forward.  So I do believe their investment contribution in the end was very small. Orbital is contributing a significant sum to their COTS activity, but partly that is from necessity (little was left in the NASA pot after Kistler tanked) and they also had begun Taurus II prior to the COTS award.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: thomson on 07/14/2010 03:50 pm
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/14/2010 04:16 pm
I believe the ultimate bottom line is this:
...
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.
    "Unwilling or unable"? Do you seriously think that Boeing/LockMart/ULA would decline a contract to build a HLV?
    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.


Nice response. NASA should be leading the way in crew and HLV development and commercial companies should be developing for their market. 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.     

 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/14/2010 04:21 pm
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?

It's a bit more under the proposed bill ($312M in FY2011, $400M in FY2012 and $500M in 2013) but the bill also says that commercial crew has priority if it's ready.  See paragraph 10 of section 2 on pages 6 and 7.

Quote
(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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Mark S on 07/14/2010 04:26 pm
.....
 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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: kttopdad on 07/14/2010 04:27 pm

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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/14/2010 05:40 pm
.....
 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

That's what Orion is, one trick. Are you going to use Orion to go to Mars? Right.

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/14/2010 05:43 pm
Are you going to use Orion to go to Mars?


Yes. They will use a MTV for the transit and hab, but Orion for at least the roles such as launch and Earth entry.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/14/2010 05:46 pm
Are you going to use Orion to go to Mars?


Yes. ...
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).
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: spacetraveler on 07/14/2010 06:10 pm
I think this is a good compromise bill. It restores capability for a BEO strategy in the near term that did not exist in any form with FY2011 proposal.

And while commercial crew is cut, the next two years are more likely to be about studies and certifications and contract proposals than building actual flight hardware anyway, so the funding for that can always be reassessed once the real work begins.

I think it was clear from the very beginning of this from comments by Nelson and others that HLV would be restored in some capacity. 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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/14/2010 06:14 pm
Since NASA's budget is not going to increase, something has to give.

Everything else, but the precious HLV.

There is still enough here for the commercial crew players to get started.

That's not the only thing that gets hit, nor is it the thing that's hit hardest.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/14/2010 06:17 pm
Are you going to use Orion to go to Mars?


Yes. ...
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).

Which of course, as Chris said, then it must then go to Mars.  Having Orion intercept any MTV on the way back could be problematic.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/14/2010 06:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: spacetraveler on 07/14/2010 06:32 pm
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.

Things the president wanted that are in this:

-Science funding increase is maintained.

-Commercial crew is maintained, albeit at a lower rate.

-CxP is cancelled.

-Station funding increased.

Things Congress wanted in this:

SD-HLV
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/14/2010 06:34 pm

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

I was referring to experiment space.  As for storage, that is what PMM is for and future inflatables.

A large module is not feasible at the ISS. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/14/2010 06:38 pm
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 I would call this draft a compromise. 

Sorry that your favorability wasn't given the appropriate weight.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/14/2010 06:38 pm
Yes it is a compromise. A compromise involves things both sides want.

Yet only SDHLV advocates are happy.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/14/2010 06:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/14/2010 06:42 pm

NASA should be leading the way in crew and HLV development

Why?  You have yet to provide any basis for your arguments.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: mmeijeri on 07/14/2010 06:42 pm
Your claims are either unsubstantiated or OBE.

Order of the British Empire? Out of Body Experience?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jorge on 07/14/2010 06:47 pm
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 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).
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jorge on 07/14/2010 06:47 pm
Your claims are either unsubstantiated or OBE.

Order of the British Empire? Out of Body Experience?


Overcome By Events.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: mmeijeri on 07/14/2010 06:48 pm
Thanks!
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/14/2010 06:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/14/2010 06:52 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/14/2010 06:56 pm
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 is when you consider the fact that as recently as one or two months ago, the position of the Senate was that CxP was massively successful and that there was no good reason to cancel it.  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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/14/2010 06:58 pm
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.

Partly.  Yet it retains the ability to do operations in the near-term using what we have today without re-inventing the wheel but also plans for development.  It utilizes commercial crew but advocates defining how all that will work prior to rushing out and issuing contracts. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/14/2010 06:59 pm
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.

Then tell them to increase the budget appropriately as well.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: phantomdj on 07/14/2010 07:01 pm

NASA should be leading the way in crew and HLV development

Why?  You have yet to provide any basis for your arguments.

Jim,

I cannot speak for JD but I believe I have stated my case for government doing and providing those things that commercial companies cannot or will not do because there is no profitable business model without government subsidies. 

I think I know your stand on HLV (>75mT) verses EELV and it has been discussed to death on other threads. One side says it is more cost effective for large LEO and BEO missions to have a HLV and uses the 10 year $100 ISS that could have been done with a few HLV missions as an example and the other side says EELV’s can do it cheaper but have no examples to prove it so we will just have to agree to disagree.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/14/2010 07:02 pm
Any acknowledgement that NASA had gone down the wrong path and now urgent action is needed to remedy that should be accepted gratefully.

This particular piece of legislation can only be accepted begrudgingly.

Quote
[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.

No argument here.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/14/2010 07:05 pm
Then tell them to increase the budget appropriately as well.

I actually think Nelson tried to do this when he started work on his bill. I don't have any evidence of it, but he seems sensible. Maybe he ran into some roadblocks and had no other choice than work with what he has. Kinda sad, but it only serves to confirm what some have been saying, NASA won't get an increase in their budget any time soon.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jorge on 07/14/2010 07:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/14/2010 07:10 pm
Yes it is a compromise. A compromise involves things both sides want.

Yet only SDHLV advocates are happy.

To be fair, a lot of the FY2011 Budget is actually in this bill. I think that commercial crew advocates would be happy if the funding hadn't been slashed by more than half. But in the end, I expect that any compromise that is accomplished will still maintain Orion and a SD-HLV. One way to increase funding for commercial crew would be to delay the HLV by at least a year.  I expect the figures in this bill to change but the objectives are likely to remain the same.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/14/2010 07:12 pm
Commercial advocates aren't happy becomes NASA goes back to the bad old days of developing their own launcher. Without a budget increase.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/14/2010 07:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/14/2010 07:16 pm
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

For the curious, I've tallied up the total spending on various items for FY2011-FY2013 (the only three years covered by the Senate draft bill):

Space Launch System: $7.15B (1.9+2.65+2.6)

Multi-purpose crew vehicle/Orion: $4B (1.3+1.3+1.4)

Mid/high-TRL exploration technology, heavy-lift, exploration architectures, and demonstrations: $975.9M (WH proposed $5.45B)

Robotic exploration precursor missions: 44+100+100= $244M (WH proposed $1.33B)

Low/mid-TRL space technology: 225+450+500= $1.175B (WH proposed $2.64B)

Commercial crew: 312+400+500= $1.2B (WH proposed $3.3B)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/14/2010 07:18 pm
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.

You are correct Jim. I am required to agree with everything you have to say.

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/14/2010 07:19 pm
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.

Unfortunatelly, R&D is always the first thing that gets cut out of a budget because it's not as tangible.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/14/2010 07:20 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/14/2010 07:21 pm

You are correct Jim. I am required to agree with everything you have to say.

You do when you are wrong
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/14/2010 07:23 pm
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. 

Are the "foundational questions" answered for the technical, programmatic, and business case for the proposed heavy-lift Space Launch System?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/14/2010 07:24 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: TexasRED on 07/14/2010 07:24 pm
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.

Most of the complaints I have seen so far are not about whats being funded per say, but rather where the funding is coming from. IE...it pulls from what they personally saw as top priority.

Was also wondering...if NASA has been given Augustine's $3B increase, could we have D) All of the above?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/14/2010 07:27 pm
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.
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.

Quote
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/14/2010 07:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/14/2010 07:35 pm
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 wasn't very clear. I meant to say that the HLV under the FY2011 Budget would have been "owned, managed and operated" by a commercial company.

Incidentally, according to page 10 of the the Senate bill (Section 3, Paragraph 10):
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: simonth on 07/14/2010 07:39 pm
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)

I have no problem with the downgrade of commercial crew. I always thought 6 billion is ridiculously much for a 4-5 year program when the Augustine Committee suggested 3-4 billion for 3-4 bidders max.

cutting R&D that heavily won't fly with the WH of course. That was their key initiative, that is start with R&D now, so you got something you can fly later. A compromise should axe Orion from the whole proposal and distribute this money to a commercial BEO vehicle program (in the commercial crew program) and to R&D.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: SpacexULA on 07/14/2010 07:39 pm
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.
You are correct Jim. I am required to agree with everything you have to say.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/14/2010 07:39 pm
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 commercial company out there can afford the development of an 70mt launcher with growth options to 150 mt, when there is no market other than the government right now?

Again, it can be used by other agencies, and presumably, other interests as they evolve. 

Perhaps ultimately it can be "commercially" owned much like Delta and Atlas.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/14/2010 07:48 pm
I purposely left out "development of the HLV" because as you say most of the development of the HLV would be funded by NASA (and perhaps DOD).
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: RyanC on 07/14/2010 07:54 pm
Apologies for the delay in replying and for the briefness of some of my replies; I had a much longer reply typed out, but a power loss due to thunderstorms in my area killed it; and then I lost power for the night a bit later.

Quote
What 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.

Quote
Actually,  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.

Quote
None 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.

Quote
To 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.

Quote
The 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.

Quote
That 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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jorge on 07/14/2010 07:57 pm
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.

I suspect so. The Senate bill provides $1.2B for commercial crew over three years, while Augustine proposed $3B over five (and really, no one believed when the Augustine report was released that Commercial Crew would get anywhere near that much... it was a real shock when Obama proposed $6B over five years).

In fact, I suspect that the administration deliberately overbid Commercial Crew in the hopes that subsequent compromises would leave the final figure fairly close to what Augustine recommended. The Senate proposal is just the second round of bargaining.

Quote
Was also wondering...if NASA has been given Augustine's $3B increase, could we have D) All of the above?

Considering that increase was per-year, yes.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/14/2010 08:02 pm
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.

I am not sure that I understand your point about the Senate bill. The bill asks that the HLV and capsule be Constellation derived. Are you arguing that NASA should continue Ares V and Orion as is with no modifications?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/14/2010 08:05 pm
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.
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.

That is simply unacceptable and is not negotiable.

Better to have no profile here.

So no, Nelson's bill is a non-starter.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Pheogh on 07/14/2010 08:08 pm
Has anyone mentioned the amendments here yet?

"Two amendments are being introduced tomorrow to correct these problems: one by Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and the other by Senator Barbara Boxer of California. Together they will restore much of the technology program (increasing it by $356 million) and permit commercial launch vehicles to be developed to allow astronaut flights to the International Space Station sooner. "

-planetary society
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: RyanC on 07/14/2010 08:10 pm
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/14/2010 08:12 pm
Has anyone mentioned the amendments here yet?

Neilh (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22163.msg618102#msg618102)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jorge on 07/14/2010 08:19 pm
I'll throw in a couple of extra points here.

The Senate bill is partly "round two" of negotiations but it is also catching up to the facts on the ground since the president's budget proposal. For one, the increase in the Shuttle budget ($0.6B) was pretty much inevitable either way due to the delay in the last two flights, and the administration was considering 135 either way... so one way or another, that line item was going to get paid for.

For another, the administration had already conceded keeping Orion around as a CRV back in April, but the budget proposal hasn't yet been amended to reflect that, and it was going to have to come from somewhere, too. If the CRV were to be initiated by simply novating the L-M CEV contract, a good chunk of the FY11 funding could simply come out of that big "Constellation Transition" line item ($1.9B in FY11 alone) rather than coming out of Commercial Crew. Whereas if the CRV were re-competed (as some are pushing for), then NASA has to pay out *all* the contract termination costs and the entire budget for CRV would come out of the hide of Obama's FY11 initiatives (Commercial Crew, technology R&D, etc).

I think that's a not-inconsiderable part of the motivation of the Senate bill; they see the Constellation Transition line item as a big $2.5B waste that could be averted by novating contracts rather than terminating them, hence the specific language in the bill.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: aquanaut99 on 07/14/2010 08:20 pm
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.

LOL @ "meatbags".

I love HK-47.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jorge on 07/14/2010 08:21 pm
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?

Because you can't just stick a can in there; there's more to it than that. That will cost money that will have to come out of somewhere else in the budget.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: psloss on 07/14/2010 08:23 pm
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.
Thanks for noting these...any chance these are online?

Also interesting from the political standpoint to note some Senators we generally don't hear from on this, particularly talking about amendments.  A bit more curious to see how this plays out on the Senate floor down the road now.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/14/2010 08:24 pm
I love HK-47.

I always thought he / it was annoying :)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/14/2010 08:24 pm

Quote
What 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.
It is necessary to 'debug' / 'optimize' the efficacy of environmental systems.

It supports a formalized process to dealing with a longstanding problem successively.

As opposed to the non-practice of ignorance by flying in spite of the hazard. Which is frequently heard. Hell, I've even heard Bob Zubrin talk like that. And he knows better.

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.

Not good enough. We need broader testing on different tissues with different animals (rhesus monkeys, pigs).

Quote
Actually,  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.
Yes. The point is you need to know more to test and validate.

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.

Untrue. What we need is a series of missions where we refine technique. And learn/prove limits.

Quote
None 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.
Not with GRB's.

We need a different approach.
Quote
To 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.
Actually, we've had unmanned spacecraft disabled EARLY in flight, the same transit times as current planned for human missions.

The point here is to remind the nature of the threat can be very high flux (or as we call it with particle accelerators - "beam current").


Quote
The 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.


Just like other endeavors - as a matter of frequency. WHich is why we need to lower launch costs to increase flight rates.

Quote
That 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.

You and me both. But its also why we need "throttle up/down" costs.

The real enemy for me is the evils of the arsenal system - the idea that you pig out costwise so nothing else can compete with you. That must die. Cx embraced it.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: spacetraveler on 07/14/2010 08:37 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/14/2010 08:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/14/2010 08:44 pm
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?

For ease of reference, here is the links to the articles that you mention on the SD-HLV study which contain some ideas for some early HLV missions:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sd-hlv-assessment-highlights-post-shuttle-solution/

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sd-hlv-review-iss-transport-reliability-of-design/

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/07/lunarbeo-sd-hlv-commercial-international-architecture/
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: atrawog2 on 07/14/2010 08:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: alexw on 07/14/2010 08:58 pm
What man-rated 75mT ULA HLV would be 'vastly cheaper' than the equivalent in functionality $9bn Jupiter-130 ? References please.
    Atlas V Phase II.
    The relevant comparison is not J-130 (whose principal use would have been to fly Orion to ISS and dispense with Ares I), but J-24x, since you need an EDS to go most anywhere.
     The relevant cost comparison is not Jupiter's *development* costs (which seem not all that high given the sheer capability), but the fixed *operations* cost of maintaining much of the STS infrastructure at Michoud, ATK, and LC-39, year in and year out, without any DOD or commercial cost sharing, whether flying or not.
      Atlas V Phase II is certainly not equivalent in functionality to either J-130 or J-24x: it's 70-80mT to LEO, not ~110mT, and a 6.2m to 7.5m payload shroud, not 10-12m. But if that's good enough performance, the NASA cost at low flight rates is much less.



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).
...
 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.
    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.
    Others have spoken more eloquently about the man-rating canard.
    -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: spacetraveler on 07/14/2010 09:10 pm
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.

For the NASA vehicle, for the given target date of 2016, I agree that that's probably not going to happen with this level of funding.

I'm much more optimistic about commercial though, especially given SpaceX's and ULA's own cost estimates.

Whether the NASA vehicle ultimately flies will depend on future administrations' priorities. I think once the initial fixed costs for commercial are paid for though, those capabilities will be here to stay.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/14/2010 09:11 pm
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.

With some of what I've heard spoken for as HLV "straw men", we get worse than Ares dev/fixed cost profiles. Nor do I here anyone trying to compete with commercial pressure breathing down their necks - hell, they think they just need to drink up the budget and starve out commercial competition.

Nelson took things backwards from the standpoint of getting real on the budgetary footprint - there isn't enough pressure to not repeat Ares conduct of budget/execution.

What difference does it make if you do a DIRECT like LV with the Ares I execution profile? At a minimum there has too be a gun to the head.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: alexw on 07/14/2010 09:12 pm
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. 
     FY2011 looks like it was trying to pick the low-lying fruit we desperately need, that's ripe for harvesting on the TRL tree.
    -Alex

(meh... purple prose!)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/14/2010 09:14 pm
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.

The "other side", with all due respect to them, either seems grossly mis-informed and/or tainted by purely negative dogma about what has happened in the past or is just purely looking out for their own interests.

Look how many equate the whole FY2011 proposal to simply "commercial" capability. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/14/2010 09:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/14/2010 09:24 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: marsavian on 07/14/2010 09:28 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/14/2010 09:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/14/2010 09:31 pm
...

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 ;).
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/14/2010 09:36 pm
You are joking. The HLV side lost Altair

In 2009 to cover Ares I cost overruns.

Quote
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.

Can't have a lunar base without a lander.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/14/2010 09:38 pm
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.

My point still holds and that no one was able to deliver their "message" about FY2011, any component of it, and hence others were able to frame the debate.  Because these questions posed above could not be well answered, it only became more of a stalemate. 

Why they were not able to sell their message with appropriate data to back it up, I'll let you decide. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: marsavian on 07/14/2010 09:40 pm
...

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 ;).
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.


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. There has been a hell of a compromise already but the nuspace guys just ain't happy until they have it all.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/14/2010 09:44 pm
Why they were not able to sell their message with appropriate data to back it up, I'll let you decide. 

I wasn't arguing whether or not the administration presented it right, merely pointing out why everyone talks about "commercial" so much and little else. Most of them do it not because they have some vested interest like you hint at, but because it's a popular subject, one where it's easy to break everything down and create a "us vs. them" mentality.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/14/2010 09:44 pm
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).
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: ugordan on 07/14/2010 09:45 pm
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: marsavian on 07/14/2010 09:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/14/2010 09:55 pm
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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: ugordan on 07/14/2010 10:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: marsavian on 07/14/2010 10:08 pm
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.

Agreed, let's go back to full VSE with a SD-HLV ;).

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/14/2010 10:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/14/2010 10:13 pm
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.

Check out the EOR vs. LOR comparison slide (Chris has a high-res version on the related forum topic).  The best TLI performance is offered by a cluster of four RL/MB-60s.

Politically, Nelson wants J-2X.  However, I don't think that the engineering data backs up that choice.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: marsavian on 07/14/2010 10:17 pm
J2-X enables three stage growth options though. Getting a 8.4m SSME HLV to 150mT may require this.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/14/2010 10:18 pm
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: alexw on 07/14/2010 10:19 pm
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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/14/2010 10:21 pm
J2-X enables three stage growth options though. Getting a 8.4m SSME HLV to 150mT may require this.

A stretched tank core gets you half-way there (135t IMLEO).

FWIW, though, I suspect that LEO propellent transfer would make the higher throw weights to LEO unnecessary.  All you need to get is your CRV, mission module, dry EDS and, likely, the ROI storable propellent in a return propulsion stage into LEO.  That's unlikely to exceed 100t IMLEO, even for a single launch scenario.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: marsavian on 07/14/2010 10:22 pm
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?

Mars.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/14/2010 10:23 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/14/2010 10:26 pm
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. 
I was talking about J-2X. RL-10 is awesome, just not high-thrust.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: 2552 on 07/14/2010 10:28 pm
Interesting bit about the MPCV/Orion:

Quote from: NASA Rockefeller1.pdf, page 27, 28
(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.

So Orion could be commercialized?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: marsavian on 07/14/2010 10:32 pm
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

No the OMB was identified as the clear culprit by Senator Nelson. Congress was always willing to authorize more than was asked for by the OMB as shown in detail by 51DMascot.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: marsavian on 07/14/2010 10:48 pm
Senator Nelson Previews 2010 NASA Reauthorization Bill

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2010/074.html
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: psloss on 07/14/2010 10:50 pm
This morning's blog post by Eric Berger has some additional discussion on what may happen to the bill after it clears the committee:
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2010/07/does_the_senate_plan_for_nasas_budget_have_legs.html

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: M_Puckett on 07/14/2010 11:31 pm
I wonder if ATK has any sway with Harry Reid?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/14/2010 11:49 pm
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: psloss on 07/14/2010 11:53 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/15/2010 12:27 am
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. 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: simonbp on 07/15/2010 12:55 am
Sidemount was being worked first.  It has more work history behind it. 

Also, it appears to cost less to develop ($11 billion vs. $14 billion in the JSC document), and would be ready ~2 years sooner. Both these makes sense, but the real question is which is cheaper when you include recurring costs.

The JSC document doesn't seem to go into this, but a similar presentation from MSFC implied that a 4-seg sidemount would cost almost as much per flight as a 5-seg, 5-SSME inline with 50% more lift (120 tonnes). Not quite apples-to-apples, but it does imply that recurring costs are a weakness for sidemount...
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/15/2010 12:58 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 01:05 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/15/2010 02:59 am
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...
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Namechange User on 07/15/2010 03:04 am
Do you honestly believe the authorizers have been working in a vaccum with respect to the appropriators and others?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/15/2010 03:06 am
Do you honestly believe the authorizers have been working in a vaccum with respect to the appropriators and others?

No.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 03:36 am
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...

They will be announcing their bill which they consider a major break through. Remember that this bill is being officially announced tomorrow.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: SpacexULA on 07/15/2010 03:45 am
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 :)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/15/2010 04:06 am
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 :)

"......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).
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Bill White on 07/15/2010 04:13 am
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"
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: TexasRED on 07/15/2010 04:21 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/15/2010 04:23 am
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"


Ok if that happens I will redact everything I have said. But my doing that would also strictly depend on the content of this bill


Considering how hard they fought for fy 2011, I find it hard to believe that Obama would simply PUBLICLY announce support for this, rather than just quietly rubber stamp or veto later on unless there is something in the bill that we don't know about yet (last minute?)

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..........

But I will wait and see. Get out the popcorn this is going to be a heck of a finale 8)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: SpacexULA on 07/15/2010 04:27 am
"......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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/15/2010 04:30 am
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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/15/2010 04:33 am
"......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.

Don't forget Nelson's comments prior to FY 2011 announcment led us to believe that there would be an SDHLV in that announcement. But there wasn't, it was radically different from the plan he thought would be announced.

Tread carefully things are changing minute by minute it seems.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/15/2010 04:35 am
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
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?

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/15/2010 04:38 am

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..........

Not necessary.  Constellation has been cancelled, the rest of the budget was negotiable.   Although Obama may wish to rename the the projects.

Orion could be renamed something North American such as Hapj.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 07/15/2010 04:42 am
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 :)

"......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).

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Danderman on 07/15/2010 04:52 am
Senator Nelson Previews 2010 NASA Reauthorization Bill

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2010/074.html

There are a couple of things to keep in mind here:

1) Authorization bills don't fund anything, so often, many goodies get stuck in authorization bill that don't pass the appropriations process.

2) Authorization bills are not necessary for funding, so if Obama truly doesn't support the Nelson document, its DOA, since Harry Reid can kill it.

What I would like to know is the relationship between the Nelson bill and the Hutchison bill thrown out here a few months ago.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Bill White on 07/15/2010 04:54 am
Quote
Tread carefully things are changing minute by minute it seems.

100% agreed. However, that sure sounds like Bill Nelson's voice on that mp3 clip.

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: HappyMartian on 07/15/2010 05:06 am
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.
You are correct Jim. I am required to agree with everything you have to say.

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.


That is the truth! I've been reading posts here for over 4 years...

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/15/2010 07:41 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: neilh on 07/15/2010 08:30 am
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.

Wow, verrry interesting. If it's the Nelson/Hutchison bill plus the commercial & tech amendments, I could definitely see myself supporting it, even if some parts of it are... suboptimal.

Delta was just listed as an example of potential crew launchers, although it's also coincidentally the second-hardest to human-rate (after Taurus).  I'm personally guessing he may have just mentioned it due to the mental association many already have between Boeing and commercial air transport.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/15/2010 09:22 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: moose103 on 07/15/2010 10:22 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Spacetime on 07/15/2010 10:24 am
Here is a bit more from the Nelson audio clip-

“We expect to pass this bill tomorrow… The White House will announce their support for our bill tomorrow, that is extremely important to us. That’s going to enable us to keep moving the ball forward in being able to have NASA continue a vigorous path of human exploration of the cosmos.”

Heavy duty.

It's interesting that the letter supporting the President's plan from former astronauts addressed the human-rated requirements thing that the senate Bill mentions. I didn't see much discussion on it.. But...
(http://nasaengineer.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/wwsd13a.jpg)

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: MATTBLAK on 07/15/2010 10:53 am
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.

Its possible, sure. But much new technology will still happen -- Propellant Depots, Lagrange Points and other mission enablers are at least being finally, seriously looked at, NOT the uneeded Ares 1 and fantasy, unaffordable Ares V. A more sensible Shuttle-Derived launcher might arise, costing a fraction of the $70 billion+plus Ares Boondoggle. Then again, we've been down a similar road before during the Pre-ESAS time period, so Moose's dire predictions may yet come true.

But look; I was critical of the so-called 'Obama Plan' to Nowhere (which it was) too. Big talk of grandiose technology developments, with no real timetable, destinations or REAL money. With no concrete plans -- which a bloated Constellation at least  DID have -- I repeat with no concrete plans, I say it is equally possible that all the Obama plan stuff would suffer the 'Death Of A Thousand Cuts' because nobody in the near future will be able to tell the Senate and Congress what all the billions with a 'B' are FOR.

The Nelson and Hutchinson, etc  compromise -- as long as it keeps COMMERICAL ISS Cargo & Crew alive -- strikes me as a do-able compromise that should accomplish - *SUSTAINABLY* many of the Constellation AND ObamaSpace objectives. Will it please everyone? Heck no, especially the sourpusses and Negative Ninny Naysayers who are NEVER happy with anything. But it should please a lot of people, even if the HLV is "ONLY" the Side-Mount: HALF the capability of Saturn V for only a fraction of its development costs. Even if Inline HLV is not chosen, Ross, Chuck and company still win: because Direct may have played an important part in forcing NASA to more sensibly look at the Launcher issue. Theirs would not be a Pyrrhic victory, but an Historical one, a little like that of John Houbolt.

I for one would have preferred they just keep the E.T. 8.4 meter tooling and go for Hydrocarbon Boosters instead of Solids. But I'm not gonna moan or whinge, especially since I'm not a U.S. Taxpayer so my opinion is merely academic. We need to start pulling together to support the future: we can all play a part to build a Mission out of this thing, or a series of Missions. There's been too much division in the Space Blogosphere over this issue already, to the point where it actually had an effect. We've gotta get behind this, but not blindly like Robots or Apologists. Demand the innovation that Constellation scarcely had! It is possible to have the whole Solar System for less than 1% percent of the Discretionary Federal Budget, even in times of hardship.

Low Earth Orbit is a Prison: It's way past time for a Jailbreak!!

Come on guys; lets Go...  8)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: marsavian on 07/15/2010 10:54 am

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.


You are not being fair and comparing apples to apples. The manpower involved in Shuttle is due to maintaining 30 year old Orbiter RLVs mission after mission and not due to the Shuttle rocket stack itself. When a commercial company develops a 25mT RLV and has much lower costs over decades then you may have a point. Hopefully Orion can now become reusable and land landing again reducing costs going forward so Apollo won't be a exact comparison either. The intensive work done by the DIRECT people over years now has shown that a NASA SD-HLV can match any ULA growth option for costs per Kg over any decent flightrate that will produce meaningful exploration so a bad option is not being chosen here just an alternative one which can seamlessly take over Shuttle in terms of facilities, personnel and existing hardware and be ready earlier than alternatives.

It is also obvious that there is now a collective will among the politicians and the people to go back to BEO for good and funding should not be a problem going forward. People took Apollo for granted at the time and only now do they realize what a great achievement it was at the time so much so that many people so easily think it was a hoax and mirage because nobody else has tried to reach that very hard mountain again. It showed that ultimately the Moon and other celestial objects were not unreachable and could be eventually colonized. The US is richer now than then, it can afford to consistently do BEO again and still spend less than 1% of the budget. There will be no turning back now, if the most naturally Space averse President can sign this budget then the support for continued VSE really is unstoppable going forward.

The final thing is that MSFC high level management have to learn the the lessons of Cx and stop thinking of ways to make things more esoteric, complex and expensive than they need to be. A lot of the stakeholders were very unimpressed with their ultimately academic efforts to produce what should have been the cheapest, quickest and most effective way to get back to the Moon but what turned out to be the most expensive pointless new rocket building exercise known to man. So they get one more chance, they shouldn't mess it up and produce quick visible cost-effective results this time rather than the best theoretical performance over the next 50 years which in reality never gets funded for the last 45 ! The enemy of the good is the perfect ! ;)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: daj24 on 07/15/2010 11:55 am
Direct Launch system on the front page of MSNBC.com along with the Nelson/Obama/etc. NASA budget items.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 12:32 pm
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).
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 12:41 pm
This morning's blog post by Eric Berger has some additional discussion on what may happen to the bill after it clears the committee:
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2010/07/does_the_senate_plan_for_nasas_budget_have_legs.html

Quote
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.
Here's this morning's post, with the same changed outlook being reported elsewhere:
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2010/07/white_house_may_be_inclined_to_support_senate_nasa.html

Quote
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.

The story in today's Orlando Sentinel also says that the language in the bill was still being worked last night:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-budget-hearing-20100714,0,1353351.story
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Drkskywxlt on 07/15/2010 12:41 pm
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.

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? 
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: SpacexULA on 07/15/2010 01:20 pm
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.
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? 

No clue on Warner, he doesn't have the track record of Boxer when it comes to holding powder.

The good thing is that the commercial option, if NASA is on board, can be quite "cheap" up front.  If it is all funded "COTS style" the milestones can be set up to push most of the funding back to 2012 without much ill effects as long as the contract is for a larger amount.  Just like CRS was signed in 2009, but the big money doesn't start coming out till 2012.

I heard once that with COTS style contracts you don't have to hold canceling fees, like the issue that just came up with Constelation, is that true?

No matter what we likely wouldn't see a bid out for the commercial section of the budget till early FY2011, 3-6 months till a contract is accepted, and the 1st milestones would likely be mostly paper milestones, so not quite as large as the later ones.

This bill can turn out to give almost everyone almost everything they wanted, which is the epidemy of a good bill.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 01:20 pm
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 :)


Boxer is proposing an amendement? What is the amendement?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 01:31 pm
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.

Yes. It's obvious that there is some ressemblance. It's not a coincidence that Senator Hutchison supports Nelson's bill.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/15/2010 01:31 pm
I for one would have preferred they just keep the E.T. 8.4 meter tooling and go for Hydrocarbon Boosters instead of Solids.

A better, lower-cost rocket would result if the ET were dropped along with the solids, both to be replaced by a single kerosene first stage.  Nelson's bill is killing the possibility of this better, more affordable idea.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/15/2010 01:33 pm
Boxer is proposing an amendement? What is the amendement?

For something that gets consistently put on the back burner and overlooked by nearly everyone, tech development.

Here's Neilh's post from a while back describing the three amendments - http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22163.msg618102#msg618102
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 01:45 pm
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 01:47 pm
Is there going to be some sort of webcast for this presser?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 01:47 pm
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?
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 01:50 pm
Is there going to be some sort of webcast for this presser?
Not sure, but a webcast just went up for the Executive Session:

Link (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)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 01:54 pm
Thanks! Set up a thread for it:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.0
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: phantomdj on 07/15/2010 02:14 pm
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: TexasRED on 07/15/2010 02:15 pm
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.

I dunno, I think we are reading into this clip a little much. We could speculate all day about whats not mentioned. Its a pretty short clip. 

Orion\LM has been quite active on the hill.  I was told LM has been talking with Bolden at least weekly and he was supporting the Orion block 0 flights being used for CRV roles. 

Also the draft does call for the vehicle to be Orion derived and utilize existing contracts, personnel, etc.

(Maybe I'm just seeing what I want to see  :P)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 02:45 pm
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.

There are two bills and each has a House and Senate version.

The authorization bill is what is being discussed now on the Senate side; it is specific to NASA.  The House version of the bill is pending, though it may already be negotiated to contain similar/identical language.  If not, the two versions will have to be reconciled in conference.  A bill agreed to by both houses might get voted on and go to the President this year.

An appropriations bill that includes NASA (rather than one only for the agency) is pending in both the House and the Senate.  Those may get to their respective floors, but there's been a lot of talk that appropriations bills won't be passed by Congress this year.  Not sure what happens in that case.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/15/2010 02:47 pm
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;
    am I reading too much into this, if I suggest that this is almost a done deal???
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 02:56 pm
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;
    am I reading too much into this, if I suggest that this is almost a done deal???
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/15/2010 03:03 pm
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;
    am I reading too much into this, if I suggest that this is almost a done deal???
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.


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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 03:08 pm
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;
    am I reading too much into this, if I suggest that this is almost a done deal???
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.


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
Based on what I've seen in the past 20-25 years, I'm going to wait to count the proverbial chickens. :)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 03:09 pm
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;
    am I reading too much into this, if I suggest that this is almost a done deal???
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.

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 to the new objectives.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 03:16 pm
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;
    am I reading too much into this, if I suggest that this is almost a done deal???
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/15/2010 11:59 pm
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?
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.


The committee will have to finalize the full text  of the bill with the amendments, as modified and agreed to in the Mark-up. That will likely take a day or so, so don't look for revised text much before that--from ANY source--that is the "real deal". They will then formally report the bill, which, in effect, acts as its "introduction" as legislation, since this is a committee-developed bill, as opposed to one introduced by a Senator or Senators and then referred to the Committee for consideration. If they choose to prepare a Report to accompany the bill, that could delay the process a little, while that gets written, though they don't NEED to be filed simultaneously. The Commerce Committee has another Mark-up scheduled next week and for at least one of the bills scheduled for that session, some of the same staffers are involved. When one task takes pretty much ALL of your waking hours, it's difficult to "multi-task," hehe. Still, none of the amendments filed for this bill (let alone those actually "accepted" today) would have made "earth-shattering changes" so the basic policy content and the general direction of the bill, so the draft that was "leaked" on Wednesday provides most of that, anyway.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/16/2010 12:05 am
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?


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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: daveray on 07/16/2010 12:20 am

51D Mascot: As a Space Shuttle Engineer, I appreciate your efforts, and the efforts of the Senators, in this bill, which supports Space Shuttle extension, and the development of a new HLV!
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: e of pi on 07/16/2010 02:04 am
(Been fairly busy at work recently)

Can I file a request to nominate this as understatement of the year, and then who would that request go to for review? Congrats on the work, get some rest.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: SpaceDave on 07/16/2010 03:29 am

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.

Wow... from committee markup in one house to actual outlay... that's like a whole civics lesson! I'll take a shot.

This is an authorization bill. In theory, an agency must do what it is authorized to do. This bill provides NASA with the legal authority to act. The House and the Senate each develop authorizations independently of each other.  Thus, the next step in the Senate is for the bill to go the floor. The House can pass or not pass its counterpart at any time prior to the end of this Congress -- there too it would need to move from the subcommittee back to the committee and back to the floor. Because the House and the Senate must pass bills with identical language, if there are differences in the engrossed bills they must be resolved by a conference committee, and the new uniform bill must be passed again by both houses. The bill becomes law when signed (or not vetoed within 10 days, unless before a recess) by the President.

Appropriations bills provide agencies with the legal authority to spend money. In reality, agencies can only act to the extent they have money to spend. Appropriations bills are developed independently from authorizations; while the House has a rule prohibiting appropriations that are not authorized, it does not mean that all authorizations are appropriated. Appropriations are split up among different jurisdictions governed by subcommittee, corresponding roughly to the committees of legislative jurisdiction in each house. Nominally, all appropriations bills begin in the House; in reality, again, they are worked on independently. As a matter of form, however, the final bill must first pass the House, and in the event of a conference bill, that too must first pass the House. Ideally, the bills are done by October 1, the beginning of the FY. If they are not, CRs are done so the government doesn't shut down.

At that point, NASA has legal authority to spend money on budget items, which tend of necessity to be big and vague (e.g., $X billion for general operating expenses, of which $Y billion must be spent for HLV development and $ZZZ million for commercial spaceflight), but no actual money to commit to contracts.

Money flows from the Treasury to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB doles out money to the agencies over the course of the year, in line with the Congressionally mandated budget and agency needs, at a rate calculated to prevent deficiencies from arising before the end of the fiscal year. Some of you may have learned of the Anti-Deficiency Act for the first time as a result of the Constellation termination liability controversy -- this is one of the Act's central provisions. OMB must apportion some money to the agency within 30 days of the beginning of the fiscal year, and must have apportioned all of it by the end of the FY. (In theory, it can apportion all of the annual budget on Day 1; this is generally a bad idea if one wants to avoid deficiencies.)

Only after apportionment can a federal agency then obligate those funds, i.e., enter into contracts to spend them. This does not actually put money into the hands of the contractors. Under typical government contracts, the government is supposed to pay the contractor by the later of either 30 days from receipt of a valid invoice (backed by a breakdown of expenses, etc.) or 37 days from the actual delivery of goods or the performance of services. Actual payment times vary considerably depending on institutional and personal factors.

And that, folks, is a rough idea of how your government spends your money.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/16/2010 03:40 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jorge on 07/16/2010 03:44 am
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.

No, he got it right. A pocket veto only works when Congress is in recess. If the president neither signs a bill nor vetoes it within 10 days, while Congress is in session, the bill becomes law without his signature.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: SpaceDave on 07/16/2010 03:47 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: yg1968 on 07/16/2010 03:51 am
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.

I stand corrected. I have forgotten a lot of this stuff... Thanks for the refresher.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: marsavian on 07/16/2010 09:33 am
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 ?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: MATTBLAK on 07/16/2010 10:33 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: JosephB on 07/16/2010 11:36 am
Some comments from another site that I thought were right on the mark:

"This Bill is simply a compromise to get votes in November. The political wolves have been let into the chicken coop. It promises more than it can fund over the next three years with Shuttle,ISS and full scale Orion continuing, at the same time a Shuttle derived HLV is developed with SRBs from Utah. Wow! It sounds like NASA's big projects with a large number of jobs (spelled votes) continues in all congressional districts. At least through November.
NASA and the contractors better start hiring right now and add as many jobs as possible before November."
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: psloss on 07/16/2010 11:38 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: marsavian on 07/16/2010 12:47 pm
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.

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 ?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: psloss on 07/16/2010 01:26 pm
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 ?
No 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.

Wouldn't be surprised if that's just the start of it.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: kirghizstan on 07/16/2010 02:00 pm
ok with this bill getting the right signals from garver and the WH, i'm really starting to feel that my theory that Obama wanted something like this all along was correct.  I know a good portion of people see this as black and white, either they loved or hated his proposal, but I have always felt he knew it wouldn't happen.  DC has become a real tough place to get anything done.  you cannot say what you want then get people to come around to it.  you need to take extreme positions and negotiate back to what you wanted to be in the first place.  there is no way the space concerned congressmen/women would have be willing to accept this proposal if obama came up with it.  they would have stuck to the ares line.  they needed to have someone come in, slap them around for them to come back with what I think should have been the plan from the beginning. 

*sorry about the rambling*
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jorge on 07/16/2010 03:17 pm
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.

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 ?

No, it would need to be an OPF. The VAB is not a suitable location to maintain an orbiter.

And yes, it would be expensive, and really only practical if the SD-HLV is constrained to be sidemount.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: sdsds on 07/18/2010 09:21 am
it would need to be an OPF [...] it would be expensive, and really only practical if the SD-HLV is constrained to be sidemount.

If the SD-HLV were inline, would it be possible to integrate the SSMEs with the core at KSC rather than Michoud?  Perhaps they could be mounted into the thrust structure in a converted OPF, with the final attachment to the core performed in the VAB....

(Related question:  on what stand would SSMEs for an SD-HLV be test-fired?)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/18/2010 11:07 am
Do no assembly work at KSC, engines and thrust structure need to come on the core integrated and tested.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: MP99 on 07/18/2010 01:58 pm
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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: clongton on 07/18/2010 03:06 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Commander Keen on 07/18/2010 03:18 pm
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?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: MP99 on 07/18/2010 03:41 pm
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.

Thanks.

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 ?

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?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/18/2010 04:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: parham55 on 07/18/2010 04:15 pm
I was in DC Thursday to Sunday and was on the Hill. I made sure I stopped by the offices of the committee members just to congratulate them on making some bit of progress. The reaction I received in Sen. Nelson's office was the most intense, "Finally someone out there noticed and cares about the space program that doesn't live in Florida!" I'd encourage anyone to give some praise to these staffers if you think it is due. They hear a lot of complaining on a daily basis and could probably use an 'attaboy' every now and then.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/18/2010 04:47 pm
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)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/18/2010 05:11 pm
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)

Actually, we probably will get the current Orion Design (Ie the CxP one) as it will take more effort to add things back in than simply finish the current design.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/18/2010 06:21 pm
I am not sure, depends on how much work has been done.

If adding these things does not require diameter changes than ok. But if it does than we probably won't get that lost capability back.

Again it all depends on:

a): how much has been done

b) does congress care if that money is not recovered?

As far as b is concerned, I am not sure they care. They seemed more ineterested in 5 seg or j2x as far as "justifying the sunk cost" is concerned. So it may not be a big deal to start from scratch.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: HarryM on 07/18/2010 08:10 pm
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)

Hurray, they can put the toilet back in!
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jim on 07/18/2010 09:14 pm

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
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: renclod on 07/18/2010 09:24 pm
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

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jorge on 07/18/2010 09:34 pm
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



Had the PoR continued, Orion was looking at needing to shave another 1200 lbm and the toilet would likely have been deleted at that point. But you're correct, it's still there in the baseline design.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: rjholling on 07/19/2010 01:29 am
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)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Lars_J on 07/19/2010 03:38 am
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.

And whatever toilet they have on Orion will most likely be even more minimal than the Shuttle one. (due to mass and volume restrictions) But it will certainly be nice to have. :-)
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Jorge on 07/19/2010 04:32 am
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.

The one in the US segment is having issues. Not believed to be a design issue, since it's the same as the Russian toilet.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Commander Keen on 07/19/2010 03:29 pm
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)

That would be great!  At worst, maybe an Orion Block 2 would have everything that Orion was supposed to be including a land recovery system.  Has anyone told the Navy that they are supposed to recover these capsules under the current version (insert sarcasm)?  Would be more expensive than a land recovery would it not?
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: MP99 on 07/19/2010 03:49 pm

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

Thanks, that's the final bit that makes it click into place for me.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: arenean on 07/19/2010 05:12 pm
I don't know if anyone already posted this, but here's the blog by Jonathan Amos of the BBC.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/07/a-lesson-in-political-science.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/07/a-lesson-in-political-science.shtml)



Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Longhorn John on 07/19/2010 05:21 pm
Nothing we don't already know in link.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: renclod on 07/19/2010 07:04 pm
Has anyone told the Navy that they are supposed to recover these capsules under the current version (insert sarcasm)? 

No need for sarcasm.
Here's a PLANORD, take a look.

Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: HappyMartian on 07/21/2010 06:03 am
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




Thank you for that information!   :)

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Proponent on 07/21/2010 07:54 am
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.

Could you give us a link to the GAO study please.
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/25/2010 08:35 pm
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/
Title: Re: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately
Post by: Proponent on 07/26/2010 06:16 am
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/

Thanks for the reply, but if the GAO study is in any of those links, I'm not seeing it.