Author Topic: Reasonable Answer to why not all EELV Plan?  (Read 232624 times)

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Reasonable Answer to why not all EELV Plan?
« Reply #40 on: 07/13/2011 11:53 pm »
NASA tried that under Administrator O'Keefe. It was called the Spiral Approach. He got fired and replaced by Mike Griffin who promised the Congress to keep the Shuttle infrastructure in place and create a Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift.

... And who then promptly got completely way-laid by "The Stick" and all its subsequent problems, not least of which was effectively DOUBLING the total LV development budget.


If Griffin had refrained from tampering with ESAS two weeks before it was released, Doug Stanley has publicly stated that ESAS was on-track to propose a Shuttle-derived LV-24/25 solution that would have been substantially lower in development and operational costs than Ares-I/V turned out to be.

I get quite depressed when I think that if not for Griffin's interference (prompted by Scott Horowitz) we would have taken that path and we would already be operationally flying a 70 ton HLV by now -- and the workforce and the politics would NOT be such a complete cluster-f***.

Ross.



We'll disagree about the "subsequent problems" of Ares I (Augustine and others said it was a well managed program with no show-stopper technical issues, etc.), but here is something to mull over. 

Ares I was funded and underway.  Its first stage motor had begun testing.  It's basic control-ability had been proven in flight test.  Its launch platform was structurally completed - and stands by the VAB today waiting for a rocket that's been canceled.  Its launch pad has new lightning towers and is still being flat-pad prepped today.  Its second stage motor is in a test stand right this minute. 

Ares I would have flown Orion years before SLS - in an entirely different decade.  Yes, it would have cost a lot of money - but SLS will make everyone pine for the days of Ares I costs  as billions are spent for a rocket that won't really perform a mission for 15 years or more.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/13/2011 11:55 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Reasonable Answer to why not all EELV Plan?
« Reply #41 on: 07/14/2011 12:35 am »
Just as Ed is convinced that a Mars mission could be done on EELV's ....
Ross.

I am not convinced that existing launchers could handle a human Mars mission.  The sheer number of launches, and the additional ground infrastructure needed for production, test, and launch, would cost far more than a super-heavy alternative approach.

Sorry, I didn't characterize your position correctly.   My bad.   Thanks for the correction.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Reasonable Answer to why not all EELV Plan?
« Reply #42 on: 07/14/2011 01:11 am »
Hence, no EELV HLV.

If NASA determines it needs HLV capacity it can compete development funds to create that capability from which it would buy, as a service.  NASA's determined needs is the market.

Ummm, no.  It cannot buy it as a "service" because that "service" is not offered to anyone else, because that is not where the "market" for the "service" exists. 

It may be an FFP contract for x-number of launches per year once operational but make no mistake about it that FFP contract will be established with profit in mind and reasonable padding for any design changes, etc because it will be the government that owns it because of the lack of a market and therefore the will for any company to invest private funds to build such a rocket to supply said market. 

There can be a market of one supplier and one consumer. It will be as opaque as they come, but technically, it is a market. The issue of it is is a service or not, is more of how you frame the contract.
A FFP for a certain amount of semiannual supplies with a certain minimum volume on the surface of Mars with a CEP of 1km, that would be a service. Supplying a big rocket to NASA for they sending their cargo can controlling it, it won't. Will it be risky, of course. Would it be riskier than if done by NASA, probably. Would that extra risk be offset by the lower cost? I don't know.
I can't stress the fact that the secret of Commercial services is NOT to give the chance to NASA of making ANY changes to the contract. If they do, it's worse than cost plus.

This post makes little sense to me personally.  You are changing the standard and commonly defined terminology to twist it into something it is not.  In this case you are suggesting it is a "market" if NASA is the only customer.  I call that, as would most, a customer and a contractor. 

I never said, or at least intended to imply, that companies do not provide a service to NASA for whatever it calls out for in the contract.  However, the context of the original post was clearly not referring to it in that method.  In the context of the original post, I'm fairly confident it was intended that NASA go out and buy that "service" just as any other potential customer would.  The problem is, there are likely no other customers for this class vehicle at this point in history (maybe eventually a few other occassional government agencies) and therefore cannot be purchased in that mehtod.

What you are left with is the government supplying something that the current commercial market cannot support.  In this case, the government owns the "something" (the SLS) and has ultimate authority over the vehicle.  There are all kinds of management practices and contractual mechanisms that could take place to streamline costs but ultimately if the government pays for all of it and will own it they have the right to make changes to it as they deem necessary (and those changes have to be balanced and weighed for what they are against everything else.  This is program management 101).
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Reasonable Answer to why not all EELV Plan?
« Reply #43 on: 07/14/2011 01:12 am »
Just as Ed is convinced that a Mars mission could be done on EELV's ....
Ross.

I am not convinced that existing launchers could handle a human Mars mission.  The sheer number of launches, and the additional ground infrastructure needed for production, test, and launch, would cost far more than a super-heavy alternative approach. 

Existing launchers could handle LEO/station, lunar, and maybe an asteroid sortie.  I believe they could do these missions for less money than a super heavy as long as the mission rates were kept low enough.   Since NASA is planning for really, really low mission rates with SLS, that shouldn't be an issue.

 - Ed Kyle
Three words:

Delta Super Heavy
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Reasonable Answer to why not all EELV Plan?
« Reply #44 on: 07/14/2011 01:19 am »
We'll disagree about the "subsequent problems" of Ares I (Augustine and others said it was a well managed program with no show-stopper technical issues, etc.), but here is something to mull over. 

Ares I was funded and underway.  Its first stage motor had begun testing.  It's basic control-ability had been proven in flight test.  Its launch platform was structurally completed - and stands by the VAB today waiting for a rocket that's been canceled.  Its launch pad has new lightning towers and is still being flat-pad prepped today.  Its second stage motor is in a test stand right this minute. 

Ares I would have flown Orion years before SLS - in an entirely different decade.  Yes, it would have cost a lot of money - but SLS will make everyone pine for the days of Ares I costs  as billions are spent for a rocket that won't really perform a mission for 15 years or more.

This analysis has a lot of truth to it.  But what do you think will happen in 2013 if there's a successful test-flight of Orion on Delta IV Heavy and the SLS is still several years and many billions of dollars away?  How strong is the pressure to drop SLS and just fly crewed Orions to and from ISS going to be?
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Reasonable Answer to why not all EELV Plan?
« Reply #45 on: 07/14/2011 01:20 am »
NASA tried that under Administrator O'Keefe. It was called the Spiral Approach. He got fired and replaced by Mike Griffin who promised the Congress to keep the Shuttle infrastructure in place and create a Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift.

... And who then promptly got completely way-laid by "The Stick" and all its subsequent problems, not least of which was effectively DOUBLING the total LV development budget.


If Griffin had refrained from tampering with ESAS two weeks before it was released, Doug Stanley has publicly stated that ESAS was on-track to propose a Shuttle-derived LV-24/25 solution that would have been substantially lower in development and operational costs than Ares-I/V turned out to be.

I get quite depressed when I think that if not for Griffin's interference (prompted by Scott Horowitz) we would have taken that path and we would already be operationally flying a 70 ton HLV by now -- and the workforce and the politics would NOT be such a complete cluster-f***.

Ross.



We'll disagree about the "subsequent problems" of Ares I (Augustine and others said it was a well managed program with no show-stopper technical issues, etc.), but here is something to mull over. 

Ares I was funded and underway.  Its first stage motor had begun testing.  It's basic control-ability had been proven in flight test.  Its launch platform was structurally completed - and stands by the VAB today waiting for a rocket that's been canceled.  Its launch pad has new lightning towers and is still being flat-pad prepped today.  Its second stage motor is in a test stand right this minute. 

Ares I would have flown Orion years before SLS - in an entirely different decade.  Yes, it would have cost a lot of money - but SLS will make everyone pine for the days of Ares I costs  as billions are spent for a rocket that won't really perform a mission for 15 years or more.

 - Ed Kyle
Ed, I just re-read the Augustine report.  Augustine had pegged the first operational flight as no sooner than 2020 at the current development rate and budget, and that was only if the ISS was splashed in 2015.

so, unless you are claiming SLS will not be ready until 2030, the Augustine report directly contradicts you.  While, yes, it did say that it worked on a technical merit basis, the timeline had it that Constellation would not be ready to begin full operation until 2025 or later.

They did state that if the NASA budget was increased by $14 billion over 5 years, then Ares I could reach launch status by 2017.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2011 01:33 am by Downix »
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline beb

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Reasonable Answer to why not all EELV Plan?
« Reply #46 on: 07/14/2011 02:07 am »
I happen to know of specific HLV payload plans outside of NASA, that are simply waiting to proceed when an HLV comes.

Ross.

You've said this before. Since you, obviously, can't talk about it perhaps the best thing to do is for to stop hinting about things you can't talk about.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Reasonable Answer to why not all EELV Plan?
« Reply #47 on: 07/14/2011 02:15 am »
I happen to know of specific HLV payload plans outside of NASA, that are simply waiting to proceed when an HLV comes.

Ross.

You've said this before. Since you, obviously, can't talk about it perhaps the best thing to do is for to stop hinting about things you can't talk about.

Sorry, no.

I've never found it to be a bad thing to continue to speak the truth, no matter who is made uncomfortable by it.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2011 02:16 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Reasonable Answer to why not all EELV Plan?
« Reply #48 on: 07/14/2011 02:21 am »
I happen to know of specific HLV payload plans outside of NASA, that are simply waiting to proceed when an HLV comes.

Ross.

You've said this before. Since you, obviously, can't talk about it perhaps the best thing to do is for to stop hinting about things you can't talk about.

Sorry, no.

I've never found it to be a bad thing to continue to speak the truth, no matter who is made uncomfortable by it.

Ross.

Who's uncomfortable? We'd love to hear more about this non-NASA HLV payload that you're tantalizingly dangling in front of us.

Would you be able to say any more in a PM?

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Reasonable Answer to why not all EELV Plan?
« Reply #49 on: 07/14/2011 03:02 am »
I happen to know of specific HLV payload plans outside of NASA, that are simply waiting to proceed when an HLV comes.

Ross.

You've said this before. Since you, obviously, can't talk about it perhaps the best thing to do is for to stop hinting about things you can't talk about.

Sorry, no.

I've never found it to be a bad thing to continue to speak the truth, no matter who is made uncomfortable by it.

Ross.

Who's uncomfortable? We'd love to hear more about this non-NASA HLV payload that you're tantalizingly dangling in front of us.

Would you be able to say any more in a PM?
I've mentioned one as well, but tend not to get anyone bothering me about it.  I used to work for a business which was partnered in the development of several pieces which required a ~60 metric ton payload capability to work.  I do know that shortly after Elon's announcement of the Falcon Heavy, my former co-workers began contacting me again asking if I was interested in working on my old project, which I turned down.  Once bitten twice shy.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: Reasonable Answer to why not all EELV Plan?
« Reply #50 on: 07/14/2011 03:10 am »
EELV capability is expandable through investment the same as the capability to launch SLS does not exist and requires investment to create.  And you only make that investment should and when you actually require it.  And EELV competitors can bring their own capability to the table.

Re: Investment. The difference between a government owned launch system and one owned by a commercial concern is that one has to make a profit and the other one doesn't. The government doesn't have to make a profit. It only has to spend everything the treasury gives it. But for the commercial companies there would first need to be a solid business case that showed there is a ROI to be had for the billions of dollars of investment money it would take to bring the EELV HLV online. So far that business case has not been made. Therefore no member of the board in his right mind is going to invest the stockholders money on any project, including an EELV HLV, that all analysis shows will loose money. Hence, no EELV HLV.

Hmm, someone should probably tell SpaceX to stop spending money on the Falcon Heavy.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Reasonable Answer to why not all EELV Plan?
« Reply #51 on: 07/14/2011 03:31 am »
Ed, I just re-read the Augustine report.  Augustine had pegged the first operational flight as no sooner than 2020 at the current development rate and budget, and that was only if the ISS was splashed in 2015.

so, unless you are claiming SLS will not be ready until 2030, the Augustine report directly contradicts you.  While, yes, it did say that it worked on a technical merit basis, the timeline had it that Constellation would not be ready to begin full operation until 2025 or later.

They did state that if the NASA budget was increased by $14 billion over 5 years, then Ares I could reach launch status by 2017.

The committee pointed out repeatedly that NASA's previously budget cuts (the $14 billion or thereabouts) must be restored if the program was to make 2017.  Obama decided instead to delete Ares I (and Orion), but restored some of the money and called it a budget increase.  I have no idea where that money went.

Now Congress is proposing more budget cuts, which makes even Bolden's 2023 - or whatever it was - date for first SLS human flight seem unlikely.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/14/2011 03:32 am by edkyle99 »

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Reasonable Answer to why not all EELV Plan?
« Reply #52 on: 07/14/2011 07:50 am »
The whole point, is that the missions usually cost by the kilogram. If you make a 300tn to LEO rocket, and Warren Buffet decides to donate five launches, even then, NASA couldn't afford to develop the payloads. The concept of going to EELV's is having small pieces that you can start, develop, test and launch withing an administration.

That simply isn't the case though.

The debate here, has been about whether to fly *specific missions* using a large number of smaller boosters or just a few larger ones.


Firstly, more than half the IMLEO for any BEO mission will be propellant, and propellant costs only pennies per kilogram, so the $ per kg to LEO becomes the only important metric here (well, plus Depot overheads if that's on the critical path).   Even so, this still represents a fairly small portion of the mission costs though.


Spacecraft that must be assembled in lego-brick fashion, from lots of small modules, will be *BY FAR* the more expensive one, compared to the single-module spacecraft that can be fully integrated and tested on the ground prior to flight.

ISS's massive costs show us more clearly than anything else, the folly of trying to do large integration missions a bit-at-a-time over dozens of flights.   A SkyLab approach would have saved ISS Program an enormous amount of spacecraft cost and we would have had the full station operational many years sooner, too.


The spacecraft, not the launchers, are the most expensive parts of any mission.   Anything you can do to lower the costs of the spacecraft are worthwhile.   Adding extra mass, extra hatches, extra docking adapters, extra equipment interfaces and extra structure is going to drive up the spacecraft costs by a massive amount, far more than *ANY* savings we might get from choosing different launchers.

Ross.

Not to mention the extra extensive labor cost of spending longer to launch and integrate the same tonnage. The much vaunted 'cheap' MLV way of doing serious BEO exploration is a myth. The Skylab/ISS comparison is perfect to illustrate this.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2011 07:51 am by marsavian »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Reasonable Answer to why not all EELV Plan?
« Reply #53 on: 07/14/2011 11:18 am »

Not to mention the extra extensive labor cost of spending longer to launch and integrate the same tonnage. The much vaunted 'cheap' MLV way of doing serious BEO exploration is a myth. The Skylab/ISS comparison is perfect to illustrate this.

Wrong analogy and non proof.
HLV is the myth.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Reasonable Answer to why not all EELV Plan?
« Reply #54 on: 07/14/2011 11:25 am »


Spacecraft that must be assembled in lego-brick fashion, from lots of small modules, will be *BY FAR* the more expensive one, compared to the single-module spacecraft that can be fully integrated and tested on the ground prior to flight.

ISS's massive costs show us more clearly than anything else, the folly of trying to do large integration missions a bit-at-a-time over dozens of flights.   A SkyLab approach would have saved ISS Program an enormous amount of spacecraft cost and we would have had the full station operational many years sooner, too.


The spacecraft, not the launchers, are the most expensive parts of any mission.   Anything you can do to lower the costs of the spacecraft are worthwhile.   Adding extra mass, extra hatches, extra docking adapters, extra equipment interfaces and extra structure is going to drive up the spacecraft costs by a massive amount, far more than *ANY* savings we might get from choosing different launchers.

Ross.

wrong, wrong, wrong.
ISS problems and costs were due to only having the STS as the launcher.

MLV launched architecture is cheaper than HLV architecture because HLV architecture has to include the cost of the development of the HLV and HLV infrastructure (which includes payload launch site facilities, transportation systems and factory upgrades).  MLV and its infrastructure already exists and is paid for.

Skylab only worked because the Saturn V existed and was paid for.  Skylab could not justified the existence of the Saturn V even if there was 8 Skylab launches (the same number of Salyuts)
« Last Edit: 07/14/2011 11:28 am by Jim »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Reasonable Answer to why not all EELV Plan?
« Reply #55 on: 07/14/2011 12:04 pm »
I happen to know of specific HLV payload plans outside of NASA, that are simply waiting to proceed when an HLV comes.

Ross.

You've said this before. Since you, obviously, can't talk about it perhaps the best thing to do is for to stop hinting about things you can't talk about.

Sorry, no.

I've never found it to be a bad thing to continue to speak the truth, no matter who is made uncomfortable by it.

Ross.

Who's uncomfortable? We'd love to hear more about this non-NASA HLV payload that you're tantalizingly dangling in front of us.

Would you be able to say any more in a PM?

FWIW, I strongly suspect that this is the payload that led DoD to convince SpaceX to fast-track Falcon Heavy.  We might also see similar (~50t IMLEO/20t GTO) versions of the EELVs go into development if USAF or NRO have payloads in development in those mass brackets.

Naturally, we wouldn't know anything concrete about such a payload until a Falcon Heavy or a Delta-IV/HLV suddenly appears on the launch manifest with an NROL. ;)

Seriously, though, the appearance of Falcon Heavy and the rumours of a Delta-heritage Kerolox mated with Common Centaur suggests to me that the opportunity for a NASA HLV to get that particular payload has flown.
"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 spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Reasonable Answer to why not all EELV Plan?
« Reply #56 on: 07/14/2011 02:27 pm »
From what I have read, 50 ton payloads are not out of reach of existing EELV's.  Delta IV heavy with strap on monolithic solids gets payloads up.  Then they could introduce cross feeding.  Atlas V heavy could also be developed, and solids could be strapped on to it.  Delta IV has the advantage of being a 5m diameter already.  An upgraded upper stage can increase payload also.  Lots of evolved things that would not require many changes to existing infrastructure.  I think 50 ton heavy versions of existing launchers could build a Mars architucture.  If it it larger than 50 tons, then something like AJAX or Neptune would work without any changes to existing launchers. 

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Reasonable Answer to why not all EELV Plan?
« Reply #57 on: 07/14/2011 02:51 pm »
Current Atlas V Heavy (as designed) does something like 29mt to LEO. And it already has the same fairing sizes as Delta IV. So from the payload's POV they are pretty equivalent.
And Atlas V Heavy has some growth options before Phase II. They could try cross feed (should add some 4 to 6 tn). They can grow the second stage (which is anemic for those sizes). Current CCB can't take strap on boosters and solid boosters, so that is not an option. But I guess with X feed and an improved US they could reach 35tn.
Besides, most of the govt payloads are for high energy orbits. At those orbits the Falcon Heavy doesn't have so much advantage. They state that they can do 19tn to a GTO, but the Atlas V Heavy should do upwards of 11tn. If you did some upgrades I'm sure 15tn should be achievable.
The true reason is lack of payloads. The Congress is actually stopping the development of future satellites. The DoD, NOAA and NASA as clients are in tight belt mode. Falcon Heavy will have to compete for a dwindling DoD market, for which it's sort of too big, while it's Falcon 9 is sort of "small" (due to lack of high energy US). At the same time FH is "too small" for NASA's exploration needs. So I guess they better get very good a dual payloads (which already is sort of difficult for Ariane, the leader).

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Reasonable Answer to why not all EELV Plan?
« Reply #58 on: 07/14/2011 03:18 pm »
EELV capability is expandable through investment the same as the capability to launch SLS does not exist and requires investment to create.  And you only make that investment should and when you actually require it.  And EELV competitors can bring their own capability to the table.

Re: Investment. The difference between a government owned launch system and one owned by a commercial concern is that one has to make a profit and the other one doesn't. The government doesn't have to make a profit. It only has to spend everything the treasury gives it. But for the commercial companies there would first need to be a solid business case that showed there is a ROI to be had for the billions of dollars of investment money it would take to bring the EELV HLV online. So far that business case has not been made. Therefore no member of the board in his right mind is going to invest the stockholders money on any project, including an EELV HLV, that all analysis shows will loose money. Hence, no EELV HLV.

Hmm, someone should probably tell SpaceX to stop spending money on the Falcon Heavy.

Ah – "Board of Directors" and "Stockholders" implies a publically held company which SpaceX is not. Elon answers to no one but himself for his own personal expenditures. He can afford to tackle the Chicken & Egg problem on his own dime, which is what he is doing – it's not NASA's money. If he looses his money then he has lost "his" money. Publically held companies however cannot do that because the money belongs to the stockholders. BOD members cannot spend it without a concrete business plan that practically guarantees a ROI. Elon's business case for the Falcon Heavy is based on 2 things; (1) his *personal* intention to go to the moon and Mars with or without NASA, on his own dime if necessary and (2) his personal belief that "if he builds it they will come" with regard to future paying payloads. Publically held companies are prohibited by Fiduciary laws from taking that kind of a chance. Elon's business case for the Falcon Heavy would not pass muster under a Fiduciary review for publicly held funds.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Reasonable Answer to why not all EELV Plan?
« Reply #59 on: 07/14/2011 03:49 pm »
baldusi, maybe someone will chime in here, but on the website, they can add monolithic solids to the heavy versions of Delta IV and Atlas V.  They also show a chart and it does approach 50 tons.  They may have to have some pad modifications according to the website.  I don't have time to find it now. 

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0