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

[CessnaDriver]

Well here we are almost at the end of June, and still no compromise. Even worse, those in Congress with an opinion on all of this, are STILL trying to save Ares and Cx.

I know many on here feel FY2011 is nothing but Obama's attempt to kill HSF...but how are the actions of those in Congress any better? They don't care about HSF one bit...all they want to do is protect the contracts and interests in their states.

Obama offers nothing better then Constellation.

His plan sucks. It's not worthy of this nation.

What else are they supposed to do in this struggle?

Cave in to Obama and get nothing better?

Constellation is the fort to fight from for something better.


God knows there are far smarter paths to follow.

The politicians who are fighting for Cx, are not looking for a fort! They want Cx...Ares I, Ares V, Altair, Orion.

They do not understand / nor care that the budget for this does not exist. All they want is for the funding to remain in their states.

Again, there were smarter choices for Obama to make, and congress would have been far more likely to sign on.

This is entirely his creation, he has forced congress to dig in like a tick.

[CessnaDriver]

Constellation is a path to cancellation. At least with "flexible path" we have more money going to R&D.

Doing R&D is is no guarantee of finding any so called game changers.
It's a massive risk.

And underfunding is a path to cancellation. Commercial will not be immune to such forces.

[Robotbeat]

Constellation is a path to cancellation. At least with "flexible path" we have more money going to R&D.

Doing R&D is is no guarantee of finding any so called game changers.
It's a massive risk.

And underfunding is a path to cancellation. Commercial will not be immune to such forces.

"Underfunding" is a huge problem if you have high fixed costs.
Also, going to space is a huge risk. There's no guarantee for anything in this world. Putting your money into developing and operating an HLV is also a huge risk.

[CessnaDriver]

Constellation is a path to cancellation. At least with "flexible path" we have more money going to R&D.

Doing R&D is is no guarantee of finding any so called game changers.
It's a massive risk.

And underfunding is a path to cancellation. Commercial will not be immune to such forces.

"Underfunding" is a huge problem if you have high fixed costs.
Also, going to space is a huge risk. There's no guarantee for anything in this world. Putting your money into developing and operating an HLV is also a huge risk.

Walking away from what we know works now is beyond risk.
It's massively foolish.

And I am not defending Ares I here.
There are many other options obviously then the radical direction Obama is attempting.

[Robotbeat]

You're right. We should stick to EELVs, because we know they work!

[CessnaDriver]

You're right. We should stick to EELVs, because we know they work!

I'm for anything that gets us up there now, back to the moon and beyond and quit screwing around when there is work to be done now, today, towards those goals.


In an age of hundred billion dollar bail outs, is cost really the issue?
Or is resolute long term commmitment, sticking with goals and taking action now to see that we succeed?



“The current policy is to think about things.... Launch nothing, do nothing and build nothing.”  -Story Musgrave

[Jim]

1.  I'm for anything that gets us up there now, back to the moon and beyond and quit screwing around when there is work to be done now, today, towards those goals.

2.  In an age of hundred billion dollar bail outs, is cost really the issue?
Or is resolute long term commmitment, sticking with goals and taking action now to see that we succeed?

1.  that is not feasible in this environment. Get use to it.  No one is going to the moon in the next 20 years, not even the Chinese.

2.  Yes cost is the issue.  The country as a whole does not want spend the money to go to the moon.  It doesn't matter what the relevant cost is in relation to the buyouts. 

[CessnaDriver]

1.  I'm for anything that gets us up there now, back to the moon and beyond and quit screwing around when there is work to be done now, today, towards those goals.

2.  In an age of hundred billion dollar bail outs, is cost really the issue?
Or is resolute long term commmitment, sticking with goals and taking action now to see that we succeed?

1.  that is not feasible in this environment. Get use to it.  No one is going to the moon in the next 20 years, not even the Chinese.

2.  Yes cost is the issue.  The country as a whole does not want spend the money to go to the moon.  It doesn't matter what the relevant cost is in relation to the buyouts. 

An Apollo 8 type mission is absolutely feasable and China may very well do it. The environment we are in now is totally created by this administration.  But that environment will change again. Change is the only constant. Obama is not President forever.

The country has no idea what it costs to return to the moon because we do not have a Commander in Chief interested to want to do it or interested enough in educating the public on how NASA is a tiny fraction of the federal budget and the massive benefits in NASA doing great things like returning to the moon.

[Jim]

1.  An Apollo 8 type mission is absolutely feasable

2.  and China may very well do it.

3.  The environment we are in now is totally created by this administration.

3a.   But that environment will change again. Change is the only constant. Obama is not President forever.

4.The country has no idea what it costs to return to the moon because we do not have a Commander in Chief interested to want to do it or interested enough in educating the public on how NASA is a tiny fraction of the federal budget and the massive benefits in NASA doing great things like returning to the moon.

1.  It is a waste for the US to such a mission

2.  All the stuff about the Chinese is a myth.   Chicken Little type hype

3.  Wrong.  We were never going to the moon with the last administration.  The policy was just empty words.  The program a waste of money. 

3a.  The US is not going, period.  It doesn't matter what party is in the White House or Congress.  There is not census in the country to back such a program

4.  Wrong, the country barely knew we were going with the last administration

Wake up, you are in the minority and hence the US is not going to the moon in the next ten years.

[zerm]

1.  An Apollo 8 type mission is absolutely feasable

2.  and China may very well do it.

3.  The environment we are in now is totally created by this administration.

3a.   But that environment will change again. Change is the only constant. Obama is not President forever.

4.The country has no idea what it costs to return to the moon because we do not have a Commander in Chief interested to want to do it or interested enough in educating the public on how NASA is a tiny fraction of the federal budget and the massive benefits in NASA doing great things like returning to the moon.

1.  It is a waste for the US to such a mission

2.  All the stuff about the Chinese is a myth.   Chicken Little type hype

3.  Wrong.  We were never going to the moon with the last administration.  The policy was just empty words.  The program a waste of money. 

3a.  The US is not going, period.  It doesn't matter what party is in the White House or Congress.  There is not census in the country to back such a program

4.  Wrong, the country barely knew we were going with the last administration

Wake up, you are in the minority and hence the US is not going to the moon in the next ten years.

Once again Jim- big empty words from someone who, like the rest of us, at the time of your posting has not even seen what the Congressional mark-up is yet. Not that I'm betting against you- but some of us have the sense to wait and see what actually does happen when and until Congress deliberates on an authorization bill.

[Jason Davies]

You're right. We should stick to EELVs, because we know they work!

They aren't human rated. Bad argument.

[Mike_1179]

They aren't human rated. Bad argument.

To be fair, a rocket that doesn't exist isn't human rated either

[Downix]

You're right. We should stick to EELVs, because we know they work!

They aren't human rated. Bad argument.

One isn't human rated.  The other was, however, designed for human flight.  Remember the OSP program, to be launched on the Atlas V?  There are no show-stoppers for it to be used as a manned launcher, according to ULA and NASA.

[Drapper23]

Mollohan(NASA Appropriations Subcommittee) Waiting For Nelson NASA Authorization Bill Coming In Mid-July http://spacenews.com/policy/100630-house-appropriators-nasa-direction.html http://www.spacenews.com/civil/bill-would-direct-nasa-begin-work-heavy-lift-rocket-next-year.html  "NASA authorizing committees in both the House and Senate have pledged to pass NASA legislation this year. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), chairman of the Senate Commerce science and space subcommittee, is expected to introduce a NASA authorization bill in mid-July. House Science and Technology Committee Chairman Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) has said his committee would pass a NASA authorization bill this year, although the timing is unclear."

[Drapper23]

Nelson July 15  Bill Will Immediately Fund HLV  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38058920/ns/technology_and_science/  "The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee is proposing to save as many as 7,500 jobs of those who work on NASA's launch team by funding an additional space shuttle supply flight to the International Space Station a year from now. That mission would be followed immediately with the building of a heavy-lift rocket and spacecraft to replace the space shuttle"...  ".Senator Bill Nelson D-Fla., told NBC News that NASA is on board with the plan that will, while the new heavy-lift rocket and spacecraft are being built, clear the way for commercial rockets to supply the space station."... "If the Senate plan is adopted, the president's goal of eventually reaching Mars will come much earlier. Astronauts will first fly "flexible" missions to asteroids and to the lunar and solar Lagrange points before heading for the Red Planet."

[yg1968]

Would it be possible to use a rocket with a domestic RD-180 equivalent and use this rocket with the Shuttle boosters?

I know that the Shuttle boosters are expensive but I wonder if this could be a compromise that would satisfy Congress. Ares V wasn't using SSMEs either. So such a rocket could arguably be seen as Constellation derived.

[rjholling]

Would it be possible to use a rocket with a domestic RD-180 equivalent and use this rocket with the Shuttle boosters?

I know that the Shuttle boosters are expensive but I wonder if this could be a compromise that would satisfy Congress. Ares V wasn't using SSMEs either. So such a rocket could arguably be seen as Constellation derived.

Woof.  I wouldn't want to ride on that rocket.

[yg1968]

I am not convinced that the HLV needs to be human-rated. In other words, I would use commercial crew as space taxis as Augustine has suggested.

But never mind my question, I have answered it myself. If you have a domestic RD180 engine, you might as well use these engines to replace the boosters (as is suggested in this article).
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-04k.html

[jml]

I am not convinced that the HLV needs to be human-rated. In other words, I would use commercial crew as space taxis as Augustine has suggested.

But never mind my question, I have answered it myself. If you have a domestic RD180 engine, you might as well use these engines to replace the boosters (as is suggested in this article).
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-04k.html

Oh - are you suggesting Atlas V CCBs to replace the SRBs while using SSME/RS-25e on the core as is being discussed on the "AJAX" thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22122.0)?
Or are you suggesting keeping the SRBs and converting the 8.4m core to kerolox and RD180?

[trout007]

You're right. We should stick to EELVs, because we know they work!

They aren't human rated. Bad argument.

I'm having a big problem with this Human Rated argument. There is a difference between Factor of Safety during design and demonstrated reliability. Let's say that ARES I was built to 1.4 and the Delta IV wasn't. Right now the Delta IV Core stage has had 19 successful flights. If there was only 2 test flights of ARES I I would still rather fly on a Delta IV.

The thing with EELV's is you don't have to pay for the infrastructure maintenance or development and you get plenty of free test launches. Any NASA owned rocket will never have enough money to launch often. Plus when the DOD decides to upgrade you get it for free.