Author Topic: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately  (Read 417342 times)

Offline Drapper23

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 262
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
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
« Last Edit: 07/09/2010 06:46 pm by yg1968 »

Offline JDCampbell

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.
 


   

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
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
« Last Edit: 07/09/2010 06:47 pm by yg1968 »

Offline JDCampbell

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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








« Last Edit: 07/09/2010 06:57 pm by JDCampbell »

Offline Drapper23

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 262
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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."
« Last Edit: 07/10/2010 01:11 pm by Drapper23 »

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
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!
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
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

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
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.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2010 02:06 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
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?




Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
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?

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.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
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.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
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.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Commercial crew is a fraction of the cost and the different commercial companies are each other's backup.

Offline MP99

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

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
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.
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
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.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2010 09:50 pm by yg1968 »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
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
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
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?
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
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.
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1