IMO the goal of a government launcher should be to push the envelop of technology where private companies cannot risk going. Prototypes not workhorses.
(see page 39 and 40)
But if NASA is expected to explore beyond Earth orbit, well, that's two steps ahead of private industry. The spacecraft and bases and surface operations (the "prototypes") are not things private companies will yet do, but neither are the propulsion elements to get them out of Earth's gravity well (the "workhorses"). EELVs plus advanced upper stages plus depots is the minimum necessary, and an HLV is helpful. In this instance, pushing the envelope is the opposite of what's wanted, since the launcher is just a tool to enable the actual mission. Once private industry catches up, NASA can leave it to them and move on.
Baldusi has explained to me (as I didn’t understand it at all), that USAF/DoD cannot build their own LV if there’s a commercial option available. And that NASA cannot build a rocket less than 50mt to LEO. (I didn’t know that!) .
Shuttle showed that NASA simply doing its own thing doesnt cause private industry to catch up, but only a commercial capability development program will create systems to come online to service specific idiosyncratic needs: EELV, COTS, Comcrew. That type of commercial utilization uplift for BEO can begin on day 1. Delaying it serves no purpose other than accommodating a bad HLV for its groupies and beneficiaries.
In this instance, pushing the envelope is the opposite of what's wanted, since the launcher is just a tool to enable the actual mission. Once private industry catches up, NASA can leave it to them and move on.
A gov't vehicle would not use any EELV hardware. Any EELV derivatives could be contracted as launch services. A gov't launch vehicle is where the gov't buys different conponents and integrates them itself or with help of integrating contractor(s) and launches them from gov't owned pads.
Shuttle side-mount?
"What would a better government launcher look like?" - cheaper, with well identified purpose and only doable if there is no private, cheaper alternative.
If you're going for a government launcher, I'd say something like the 70mt modified existing ELV from Lockheed Martin's pre-ESAS VSE study would be a decent way to go:http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_midterm/Lockheed_Martin.pdf(see page 39 and 40)
Quote from: Lobo on 11/01/2012 10:45 pmBaldusi has explained to me (as I didn’t understand it at all), that USAF/DoD cannot build their own LV if there’s a commercial option available. And that NASA cannot build a rocket less than 50mt to LEO. (I didn’t know that!) .That is extremely dubious... Where in the world was that 50mt figure pulled from?
Quote from: Jim on 11/02/2012 12:39 pmA gov't vehicle would not use any EELV hardware. Any EELV derivatives could be contracted as launch services. A gov't launch vehicle is where the gov't buys different conponents and integrates them itself or with help of integrating contractor(s) and launches them from gov't owned pads.I get what you're saying, Jim. I think what me and Matt are saying is that a vehicle for exclusively government use does not have to be built using the old arsenal system or its more modern variations. The government can be the only customer even if it isn't the prime contractor.I should also add that I, at least, wasn't talking about an EELV derivative, just the shameless theft adoption of the Phase II concept.
Quote from: Warren Platts on 11/02/2012 03:16 pmShuttle side-mount?Certainly would have been the quickest, although there was some information to suggest that it would have been a cargo-only machine because of problems with aerodynamics around the ET for launch aborts.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 11/02/2012 03:38 pmQuote from: Warren Platts on 11/02/2012 03:16 pmShuttle side-mount?Certainly would have been the quickest, although there was some information to suggest that it would have been a cargo-only machine because of problems with aerodynamics around the ET for launch aborts.Wouldn't shuttle side mount be too big/expensive for many USAF/DoD payloads that are currently launching on smaller Atlas and Delta configurations?
Yes, for the purposes of this excercise, you can assume anything. Like I said, we are rewinding back to the time the EELV's were being developed by Boeing and LM, but hadn't actually been produced. Add in a much more cost-efficiency minded NASA looking to replace the Shuttle in around a decade, and thus the RFQ goes out for a system capable of X and Y, as defined by us here on this thread, for both NASA and USAF/DoD. (so it’s a hypothetical obviously)
NASA would still need a separate launch service for its human space flight needs.
SLS only makes sense if NASA goes to Mars.
SLS would be great, cost effective support
Quote from: edkyle99 on 11/03/2012 04:59 amNASA would still need a separate launch service for its human space flight needs. Why? Commercial launch services can get astronauts into space. If worse comes to worse, there's always the Russians. Right?The only reason for a government rocket is to do that which commercial providers can't or won't provide on their own. That means super heavy lift. Whether it's really necessary is a separate question, but there is no question that SHLV's would be a super nice-to-have as long as the price is right.
NASA doesn't need to "own" its rocket, it simply needs a differently-specified launch service. Human launch has different requirements than satellite launch. Sat launch needs lower cost with high reliability. Human launch needs safety, safety, and safety, with abort modes for every contingency. The latter needs, in essence, more thrust - and thrust costs money. Trying to put fit a human space launch suit on a rocket designed for satellite launch would drive up costs for satellite launch while forcing compromise on the human launch side.That's why NASA needs its own launch service. - Ed Kyle
Six letter word… Starts with a D and ends with a T… ;)
My concept uses 2 upper stages, and Atlas V P2/3a seems to just use one upper stage. That would be more simple, but would it be flexible enough for both light EELV class lit, and heavy lift for NASA? Maybe they could do two lengths of the same upper stage, like ACES-41 and ACES-71, with variable engine mounts on the MPS for different numbers of engines depending on the mission?
What would the "best" government launcher look like? Invisible.NASA should be out of the launch business. They had their innings.
" For the sake of this thread, I’m curious if there’s a “one arrow quiver” option that could meet USAF/DoD’s needs which are currently met by EELV, but also be used by NASA for it’s BLEO goals/needs."
All non-NASA human exploration spaceflight demand is in the medium lift class. Military payloads, commercial payloads, science payloads, and now ISS payloads. Many concepts have been presented where human exploration spaceflight can be effectively accomplished using the medium lift class launchers, and this path has its own advantages versus the heavy lift alternative. Ergo, the answer to this thread is that NASA's exploration program should be undertaken with launchers in the medium lift class. As to what launcher, the answer to that is through competitive procurement of launch services. Rather than a specific launcher, a payload envelope, and the most fit vehicle servicing that envelope.