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
Quote from: Drapper23 on 07/09/2010 06:27 pmNelson: 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.htmlPretty much the same here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html?_r=2But 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.
Quote from: JDCampbell on 07/09/2010 06:38 pmQuote from: Drapper23 on 07/09/2010 06:27 pmNelson: 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.htmlPretty much the same here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html?_r=2But the point of the bill is making that distinction between NASA defined goals and those of a developing commercial market eliminating the confusion that certain companies would be required to provide a specific service for NASA, hence the reduction of funding for commercial companies.Yes and both articles provide no new information that wasn't already in Nelson's letter:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22001.0
While saying it was not the committee's place to design rockets, Nelson said the giant launcher -- capable of lifting at least 75 metric tons -- should be largely derived from shuttle systems and likely would use solid rocket boosters, like the Constellation program's...
A more cautious approach to commercial crew taxis. Nelson said that $6 billion Obama wants to help ready commercial rockets and spacecraft for human flight would be spread out over six years instead of five, adopting a "walk before you run" approach.
"In the development of a heavy-lift (vehicle), you have a central core that could be a back-up" if the commercial initiative fails, he said.
Quote from: Florida TodayA more cautious approach to commercial crew taxis. Nelson said that $6 billion Obama wants to help ready commercial rockets and spacecraft for human flight would be spread out over six years instead of five, adopting a "walk before you run" approach.So that's how the "walk before you run" Commercial Crew works? 6 billion is over 6 years instead of 5? I was afraid they might underfund it, but this isn't so bad.
Quote from: Florida Today"In the development of a heavy-lift (vehicle), you have a central core that could be a back-up" if the commercial initiative fails, he said.Does "central core" = ET? Is he talking about the SSTO crew launcher from the Boeing SD-HLV proposal?
Quote from: 2552 on 07/10/2010 03:26 pmQuote from: Florida TodayA more cautious approach to commercial crew taxis. Nelson said that $6 billion Obama wants to help ready commercial rockets and spacecraft for human flight would be spread out over six years instead of five, adopting a "walk before you run" approach.So that's how the "walk before you run" Commercial Crew works? 6 billion is over 6 years instead of 5? I was afraid they might underfund it, but this isn't so bad.I think that the concern was that commercial crew was being put on the critical path. It was going to be the only US-indigenous crew launch capability. With the development of an SD-HLV and Orion, that is no longer the case.Although using the SD-HLV would be more expensive than the commercial option, it would also mean that the commercial providers are no longer in the position of having to get it right at any cost. In my view, Administrator Bolden's admission to Congress that commercial crew simply could not be allowed to fail under the President's proposals was the most damning comment about the proposals to date.
Because of the risk of cancellation of large multi-year programs, the HLV has more chance of failling (by being cancelled) than commercial crew does.
5 seg SRBs ...check.J2...check.
Nelson said the giant launcher -- capable of lifting at least 75 metric tons
Not really, when you realise that commercial crew is also a large multi-year program that is greatly dependent on public funding. Commercial crew is also vulnerable to defunding, political feuds and unexpected technical issues.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 07/10/2010 06:46 pmNot really, when you realise that commercial crew is also a large multi-year program that is greatly dependent on public funding. Commercial crew is also vulnerable to defunding, political feuds and unexpected technical issues.I though Commercial Crew was more of a spacecraft program than a launcher program. All the launchers being seriously considered for Commercial crew need "minimum" alteration to become manned launchers.On the other hand HLV, would be a launcher and a spacecraft program mixed together, therefore by it's very nature much larger and more "vulnerable" than a commercial operation.Your right though both would be vulnerable to budget cuts, but commercial crew only the spacecraft would be vulnerable, with HLV both launcher and spacecraft are vulnerable.
Quote from: SpacexULA on 07/10/2010 09:12 pmQuote from: Ben the Space Brit on 07/10/2010 06:46 pmNot really, when you realise that commercial crew is also a large multi-year program that is greatly dependent on public funding. Commercial crew is also vulnerable to defunding, political feuds and unexpected technical issues.I though Commercial Crew was more of a spacecraft program than a launcher program. All the launchers being seriously considered for Commercial crew need "minimum" alteration to become manned launchers.On the other hand HLV, would be a launcher and a spacecraft program mixed together, therefore by it's very nature much larger and more "vulnerable" than a commercial operation.Your right though both would be vulnerable to budget cuts, but commercial crew only the spacecraft would be vulnerable, with HLV both launcher and spacecraft are vulnerable.ULA received money under CCDev. Blue Origin received money for a LAS under CCDev. So I imagine that it is more than money for just a spacecraft. ULA is asking for $1B-$2B to manrate the Atlas V.
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/10/2010 09:47 pmULA received money under CCDev. Blue Origin received money for a LAS under CCDev. So I imagine that it is more than money for just a spacecraft. ULA is asking for $1B-$2B to manrate the Atlas V. When did ULA ask for that much?
ULA received money under CCDev. Blue Origin received money for a LAS under CCDev. So I imagine that it is more than money for just a spacecraft. ULA is asking for $1B-$2B to manrate the Atlas V.