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

[savuporo]

So when you add up Ares cancellation and STS production restart and operating costs , how much budget for anything in the next years for anything will actually remain ?

[Ben the Space Brit]

If we go sidemount...what is more likely? 4 seg SRBs for commonality with Shuttle, or will they use what has been learned from Ares and go with 5 seg SRBs? This way Ares doesn't look like a complete waste.

From the work the DIRECT team did, we know that 5-seg can be modified for the ET's attachment points.  I can't see this not happening; not only would it increase the vehicle's performance but it might be critical for getting ATK and DoD on-side.

[thomasafb]

You could have school children competing to name the first 'true' spaceship.

I believe we all know that there is only one name that can win in such a competition and it still waits to be used in space - outside the movies that is....

[Svetoslav]

I usually don't participate in these discussions, but... what does Orion Lite mean?

Is this something like this:

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/090814-orion-lite.html

LEO only, sooner than 2015, lighter capsule...

[Chris Bergin]

Orion Lite is an ISS-only Orion, with a smaller crew site. Lockheed proposed it, NASA told them to stop. Now Lockheed have full control back, they can work on its proposal.

[franklinD]

The article is speculation and speculation only. As outlined it will not, it cannot happen. Shuttle extension and the development of a Shuttle sidemount HLV will add many tens of billions to NASA's costs over the next 10 years. This money will have to come from somewhere. The article states commercial crew would remain funded as planned, which means the money could only come out of science and R&D. This would not be a compromise, it would be the end of the current budget proposal and a retooling of Project Constellation with too little money.

I don't expect either the Shuttle program to be extended nor an HLV to be developed starting any time soon.

[Downix]

If we go sidemount...what is more likely? 4 seg SRBs for commonality with Shuttle, or will they use what has been learned from Ares and go with 5 seg SRBs? This way Ares doesn't look like a complete waste.

From the work the DIRECT team did, we know that 5-seg can be modified for the ET's attachment points.  I can't see this not happening; not only would it increase the vehicle's performance but it might be critical for getting ATK and DoD on-side.

That was my thought.  Do 5-seg SRB + use twin RS-68 over the SSME, and you now have a craft capable of ~90mT to orbit by my math.  Add in an ACES upper-stage w/ 4 RL-10's, easily 110mT.  Ideal depot delivery vehicle.

[franklinD]

That was my thought.  Do 5-seg SRB + use twin RS-68 over the SSME, and you now have a craft capable of ~90mT to orbit by my math. 

development for that is too costly. they would rather try to experiment with a recoverable boattail and SSMEs.

[ChrisSpaceCH]

Sorry, I can't resist...

The "compromise solution" presented at NASA Watch is EXACTLY the suggestion for a compromise I speculated on about 2 or 3 weeks ago  (Orion lite on EELV for crew, cargo-only sidemount HLV developped after a Shuttle extension).

When I first proposed this architecture, I got flamed (by some DIRECT proponents) and was told I was an inaccurate for daring to bring up Sidemount, which is so inferior to J-130! (It is, but that's not the point. The point is that it is the quickest to develop HLV with the least amount of FUD. And the sidemounting is fine if you don't intend to man-rate it. Plus, it is no competition to commercial, since none of the commercial gang has anything like it or even has plans to compete in the 70mt lifter range... Oh, and it keeps the SRBs in business, too...)

Funny how this very same architecture is now suddenly supposed the holy grail of NASA's salvation...

Oh, well, we'll see come April 15th...

[Peter NASA]

The article is speculation and speculation only. As outlined it will not, it cannot happen. Shuttle extension and the development of a Shuttle sidemount HLV will add many tens of billions to NASA's costs over the next 10 years. This money will have to come from somewhere. The article states commercial crew would remain funded as planned, which means the money could only come out of science and R&D. This would not be a compromise, it would be the end of the current budget proposal and a retooling of Project Constellation with too little money.

I don't expect either the Shuttle program to be extended nor an HLV to be developed starting any time soon.

Maybe if the anti-shuttle Dorothy-types tap their heels together loud enough, this talk of extension will just go away, right? "There's no place like denial, there's no place like denial."

It is officially documented it can happen. Forget about the manifest stretch, forget about potentially extra money needed (as much as some people need calculators as you're redividing the increased budget), as none of that results in it "it will not, it cannot happen".

FACT.

[Downix]

That was my thought.  Do 5-seg SRB + use twin RS-68 over the SSME, and you now have a craft capable of ~90mT to orbit by my math. 

development for that is too costly. they would rather try to experiment with a recoverable boattail and SSMEs.

Development for the 5-seg is almost done.  RS-68 is already here.  But work on the recoverable boattail was also done in the 1990's, so both are options.

[Namechange User]

Honestly I don't see the need for a sidemount SDHLV, unless of course keeping jobs is your priority and not lowering costs.

Once again, you come in here and throw out meaningless comments with nothing to back it up.  There is zero tangible data that any of the proposed FY2011 budget will lower cost.  In fact, cost is an unknown, not to mention what capability will be derived for that unknown cost.  Speak intelligently or do not speak at all.

Large workforce = large annual cost.  Do you at least agree with that?

Any kind of HLV is going to require a workforce.  You agree with that right?

Building a SDHLV preserves the workforce but does not lower costs as much as not building a SDHLV.  Hence my post 'I don't see the need for a sidemount SDHLV, unless of course keeping jobs is your priority and not lowering costs.'

The main difference between our opinions is that I do not believe an HLV is nescessary for a meaningful exploration program and I'm guessing you do.

Just because you do not agree with my opinion does not make it unintelligent or inferior to yours.

You are entitled to your opinion.  However, you never back it up with anything and just swoop in an say things like, "I believe the payload that carries a payload and 7 people is a complete waste".  That contributes nothing.....and you know it. 

All said, that is absolutely brilliant deductive reasoning on your part about the larger the workforce the larger the annual cost.  No one has ever linked those together in such an insightful way.  However, you leave out capability, which is a huge part of the equation. 

Also, what would be the workforce for a SDHLV?  Why don't you talk about that?  Could it be because you cannot talk about that with any authority because you really do not know?  It will not be the Shuttle workforce because in no way will every job translate to an HLV. 

[Ben the Space Brit]

That was my thought.  Do 5-seg SRB + use twin RS-68 over the SSME, and you now have a craft capable of ~90mT to orbit by my math. 

development for that is too costly. they would rather try to experiment with a recoverable boattail and SSMEs.

Interesting.  Can you tell us how you are so sure what "they" want? Are you on the inside at JSC or MSFC? Or are you simply telling us what you want and are assuming that everyone at NASA feels the same way?

[JohnFornaro]

Well:  Keith's article is interesting.  Can there be a consensus building around the concept of using what we have?  Personally, I never had a problem with the idea of Shuttle-C, but some people around here treat the concept at the Shuttle-Anti-Ch...

And what about his comment about the DIRECT cost estimates?

The in-space exploration vehicle is [ahem] my idea.  I don't see this as a lander.  It is a tug, a taxi, a means to get from LEO to BEO.  I would say that a Dragon is attached to it, or a Bigelow thingie, cargo, Altair, whatever.  It never deals with an atmosphere, and it never deals with landing in a gravity well, which has got to save on kilos and ducats.

And what the farouk [pardon the Arabic] is the Merchant7?  Sounds like a radical group from the sixties.  In my mangnanitudininity, I grant anyone the right to claim the space tug as their idea.

I have my hand up.

[strangequark]

From the work the DIRECT team did, we know that 5-seg can be modified for the ET's attachment points.

Not to derail too much, but how is it modified? I've never been able to find any detail on that. PM if you'd prefer.

As to the article, it sounds plausible, but it also sounds like Keith is just pulling his preferred solution out of a hat. The clue is the wanton DIRECT-bashing, and the fact that his arguments don't square with some of the info we know about the Bolden HLV study.

[iontyre]

Not to brag or anything, but I had an opinion piece published on SpaceDaily 9 years ago plugging the idea of an 'exploration vehicle'.  Excuse my then ignorance of the SSME's non-restartable property, but otherwise I think I had the right idea!

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-01d.html

[JohnFornaro]

Ahhh.  Why would he engage in wanton bashing?  I did notice that he had no substance behind his harsh assessment.

[TrueBlueWitt]

That was my thought.  Do 5-seg SRB + use twin RS-68 over the SSME, and you now have a craft capable of ~90mT to orbit by my math. 

development for that is too costly. they would rather try to experiment with a recoverable boattail and SSMEs.

Development for the 5-seg is almost done.  RS-68 is already here.  But work on the recoverable boattail was also done in the 1990's, so both are options.

Somebody is wishing right now they'd never reconfigured the 2nd pad to fly that giant model rocket(Ares-1X)...

DIRECT was the best alternative to Constellation for accomplishing VSE.. and that's all it really claimed to be.

Since the Vision has changed.. The DIRECT concept may or may not still be the best alternative.   DIRECT's cost, which assumed a Man-rated and crewed HLV may be more expensive than a cargo only Side-mount design(without a larger fairing or any of the other things that Not Shuttle-C proposed).  Side mount has serious limitations.. but if the game has changed(cycler, depots, et al..) then perhaps fairing volume and straight forward upgrade path(more mass to LEO) is now less important?

Even if we end up with this compromised "vision" we still owe the DIRECT team a debt of gratitude for their relentless efforts to reveal Constellation for the unaffordable and ill concieved architecture it truly was.

[TexasRED]

Orion Lite is an ISS-only Orion, with a smaller crew site. Lockheed proposed it, NASA told them to stop. Now Lockheed have full control back, they can work on its proposal.

FWIW, this "optimized" Orion (I have yet to see it called "Orion-Lite" on paper) seems to be the focus now.  NASA\HQ seems to be "warming up" to this now too.  NASA is still involved with parts of Orion too.

The optimized Orion is now working under GY2010 funding too, which I find notable.  I am personally still not convinced it will continue with GY2011 as-is. In other words, I am not personally convinced LM will continue to build it without any funding.

On the overall idea of a compromise existing, I am not going to hold my breath.  Key congressmen aren't invited to this summit, no NASA center heads AFAIK, no high ups in management, CEO's, etc etc.  This doesn't sound like a "lets talk" type of event, and sounds eerily similair to how this budget was rolled out.

Actually, in my opinion this doesn't sound like there will be much said at all during this summit.  But, as one person put it "Obama won't say anything but will say a lot at the same time." 

[Sparky]

"I'm a PC, and Merchant 7 (and the space-only exploration vehicle) was my idea!"

I suppose if Gene Roddenberry were alive he'd take credit for it too.

Yes, this article is speculation; even if completly true, such a plan would still have to get past the President and Congress to even have a chance of seeing life as actual hardware.

That said, the article is still a fascinating insight to what the powers-that-be at the agency might be thinking.