Is A Human Space Flight Compromise Emerging? (STS Extension/SD HLV etc)

[Proponent]

Why does Nelson's letter fail, as the Sentinel points out, to support the modernization of Cape Canaveral's facilities?  That's $2 billion bucks to be spent in Florida; shouldn't Nelson be enthusiastic about it?

[FinalFrontier]

Why does Nelson's letter fail, as the Sentinel points out, to support the modernization of Cape Canaveral's facilities?  That's $2 billion bucks to be spent in Florida; shouldn't Nelson be enthusiastic about it?

Depends on what modernization actually means.

[KSC Engineer]

As I predicted.  HLV will replace Cx and another shuttle flight (Atlantis) will be added to help KSC workers into to late 2011 then most will go to HLV.  Unfortunately a few people will lose their jobs for a few months or move on for good.  That is the truly sad part as no one likes to be fired. 

All this Senator Nelson - HLV talk is all bad news for the "I hate all government rocket programs" folks.  They did not read their history books and really thought SpaceX was going to put most of NASA out of business.  I'm not that bright but all one has to do is read space history to know what was going to play out here.   HLV is the next new big NASA program with a test flight or two in between. 

[yinzer]

The problem with an HLV has always been finding payloads for it.  What are the payloads for this new HLV supposed to be, and where is the money for them supposed to come from?

[savuporo]

The problem with an HLV has always been finding payloads for it.  What are the payloads for this new HLV supposed to be, and where is the money for them supposed to come from?

Ah ! you are not supposed to ask that.

[KSC Engineer]

The problem with an HLV has always been finding payloads for it.  What are the payloads for this new HLV supposed to be, and where is the money for them supposed to come from?

I respectfully disagree with your first statement.   I guess the money will come customers and from the tax payer - same as who will pay for the future SpaceX flights. 

[mr_magoo]

Chicken and egg again.   But that's Senator Chicken to us.

[sdsds]

The problem with an HLV has always been finding payloads for it.  What are the payloads for this new HLV supposed to be, and where is the money for them supposed to come from?

Ah ! you are not supposed to ask that.

As discussed elsewhere, the term "HLV" means just what Humpty-Dumpty chooses it to mean, neither more nor less.  The context in the Nelson letter is, "support these new human spaceflight activities" and "contingency capability to the ISS."

Given that context, Nelson strongly hints his "HLV" is human-rated.

[gladiator1332]

The problem with an HLV has always been finding payloads for it.  What are the payloads for this new HLV supposed to be, and where is the money for them supposed to come from?

Ah ! you are not supposed to ask that.

As discussed elsewhere, the term "HLV" means just what Humpty-Dumpty chooses it to mean, neither more nor less.  The context in the Nelson letter is, "support these new human spaceflight activities" and "contingency capability to the ISS."

Given that context, Nelson strongly hints his "HLV" is human-rated.

Good point. We slap "Heavy" on the Delta IV, but you would hardly call that a "Heavy Lifter". Unfortunately this isn't a cut and paste definition as it is in aviation...."a. Heavy. Aircraft capable of takeoff weights of more than 255,000 pounds whether or not they are operating at this weight during a particular phase of flight."

[savuporo]

Given that context, Nelson strongly hints his "HLV" is human-rated.

The only thing Nelson hints at, is keeping some of the jobs. No more, no less. I doubt if he honestly cares if his HLV is human, monkey or fish-rated.

[rjholling]

Given that context, Nelson strongly hints his "HLV" is human-rated.

The only thing Nelson hints at, is keeping some of the jobs. No more, no less. I doubt if he honestly cares if his HLV is human, monkey or fish-rated.

What about whale rated? 

[gladiator1332]

Given that context, Nelson strongly hints his "HLV" is human-rated.

The only thing Nelson hints at, is keeping some of the jobs. No more, no less. I doubt if he honestly cares if his HLV is human, monkey or fish-rated.

That is probably left for NASA to decide.

[yg1968]

This would be the logical thing to do. Congess shouldn't get into the specifics (which is NASA's job). It should only give broad guidelines.

[mr_magoo]

He's certainly hinting that it should be able to do something in support of ISS.  Which means a cargo capsule at the very least.  Timelines TBD.

[Proponent]

The problem with an HLV has always been finding payloads for it.  What are the payloads for this new HLV supposed to be, and where is the money for them supposed to come from?

I respectfully disagree with your first statement.   I guess the money will come customers and from the tax payer - same as who will pay for the future SpaceX flights.

There is a proven market demand for launch vehicles the size of the Falcon 9 and the Falcon 9 Heavy (about 10 and 30 tonnes to LEO, respectively).  SpaceX will be able to find customers.  But if we're talking HLV and HLV means something like 50-100 tonnes, then there is no sign of commercial demand.  And as for the taxpayer, well, over the next few years he is going find himself spending more and more money on Medicare as the baby boomers retire.  There is a big risk that he's going to be willing to pay to build a big HLV and the even more expensive payloads for it.

[Proponent]

Chicken and egg again.

In line with my previous comment, I'd say it's more like "chicken or egg," but not both.

[simonth]

There is a proven market demand for launch vehicles the size of the Falcon 9 and the Falcon 9 Heavy (about 10 and 30 tonnes to LEO, respectively). 

Actually there is no sign of any market demand of 30 tons to LEO. There is a need for 6-7mt to GTO.

[Proponent]

There is a proven market demand for launch vehicles the size of the Falcon 9 and the Falcon 9 Heavy (about 10 and 30 tonnes to LEO, respectively). 

Actually there is no sign of any market demand of 30 tons to LEO. There is a need for 6-7mt to GTO.

DoD has put 20-ish tonne satellites in LEO, no?  F9H is overkill for that, but if the price is right, the customer is not going to object to wasting payload capability on philosophical grounds.

[Ben the Space Brit]

The problem with an HLV has always been finding payloads for it.  What are the payloads for this new HLV supposed to be, and where is the money for them supposed to come from?

Given that the Nelson Plan supports ISS to 2020 (at the very least), then at least some of them will be ISS support payloads, such as logistics carriers and maybe (although this is unlikely to happen more than once or twice) new modules.  Personally, I suspect that the only new module that I can see actually happening is the Bigelow/transhab demonstrator - ISSP seem to be quite enthusiastic about that.

That aside, this really does illustrate how difficult NASA's budget situation really is.  Two new capabilties, HLV and commercial ISS support, both arguably needed in the short-to-mid term and one has to go somewhat underfunded.

A COTS-style program to develop commercial crew isn't necessarily a bad thing.  The only reason for the rush to commercial crew in the President's FY2011 proposal is because there would be no in-house NASA system.  So, as the Nelson Plan proposes a NASA system, a commercial system isn't such an immediate priority.  However, I think that Nelson (plus whatever experts he and his staff consulted) have shown very clear thinking in that they have perceived that, in the long term, ISS support must go commercial because NASA cannot afford to operate both ISS support and BEO operations in-house.

Senator Nelson:
I am proposing that we take a ‘walk before you run’ approach to commercial crew services...

IMHO, these are wise and very moderate words that may be remembered as the saving of US-indigenous human spaceflight.  There is no reason to rush to develop a new capability.  Let's do it slower, and do it right.

If administered properly, this plan would remove the concerns about developing payloads and missions.  After developing the Orion, LEO-only version of the HLV and the logistics carrier, R&D can be switched to things like habs, landers, mission development and even advanced in-space propulsion (which were progressing slowly anyway).  There will be at least 5 years, possibly 10 years (assuming ISS to 2025) to complete them.

We might even see a situation develop, thanks to the HLV/Orion operating in parallel with commercial crew, of NASA having both ISS and BEO missions running in parallel.  A weird part of me imagines listening on NASA TV to a crew on the Moon talking to a crew on the ISS on the "Really Big Loop".

I think we are going to see, if this comes up to a vote, exactly how strong NASA's support in Congress really is and the degree to which local interests, such as lobbying from certain potential contractors, influence NASA policy.

[MP99]

That aside, this really does illustrate how difficult NASA's budget situation really is.  Two new capabilties, HLV and commercial ISS support, both arguably needed in the short-to-mid term and one has to go somewhat underfunded.

A COTS-style program to develop commercial crew isn't necessarily a bad thing.  The only reason for the rush to commercial crew in the President's FY2011 proposal is because there would be no in-house NASA system.  So, as the Nelson Plan proposes a NASA system, a commercial system isn't such an immediate priority.  However, I think that Nelson (plus whatever experts he and his staff consulted) have shown very clear thinking in that they have perceived that, in the long term, ISS support must go commercial because NASA cannot afford to operate both ISS support and BEO operations in-house.

FY11 intends that commercial providers put their own funds into the development of crewed services in anticipation of getting a return on ISS flights. NASA then expects the costs of those flights will come down as the flight rate goes up supporting Bigelow. IE NASA nurtures CC, enabling non-ISS Human LEO access.

As the startup date for CC gets closer to 2020, NASA will need to provide a greater proportion (or all) of the costs to develop the service. That might actually reduce the costs of the flights (to both NASA & others), but it also worsens the budget crunch in the years when NASA is funding both HLV & a couple of CCDev programmes.

cheers, Martin