Author Topic: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV  (Read 300131 times)

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688

The Hutchinson bill is bad legislation because it forces us to chose quickly. If we can build a competitive market for LEO launches, there's a good chance we can do the same for heavy lift. It's important that legislatively we don't do anything to preclude such a market from forming. If a SD-HLV is to be built, the technology should first be transferred to a private company that then has to compete with everyone else on costs and capabilities. To have government operating what has essentially become a commodity is a mistake.

I'm sorry, but you're taking the wrong thing out of the context of the Bill.

re-read p.24

Line 8: Heavy Lift Development
        1) Review...
        2) Content -the review shall -...

These are 'recommendations' NOT absolutes. They are also on the REVIEW side, not the development side.
They may indeed find that in the grand scheme of things we MUST do away with SD-HLV due to the 'as yet unstated' goals and plan.

But nobody can say with any certainty what IS required, only what MIGHT be required. But there is ONE guarantee. If we do not adopt a SD-HLV, we face the same scenario as the post-Apollo days: brain drain. And the time it takes for NASA to get its act together (and congress to fund something post-mordem) may indeed cripple the American space industry.

You want proof, look at Constellation and how that was turning out.

Offline Serafeim

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 299
  • Greece
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is a planned infrared space observatory, the partial successor to the aging Hubble Space Telescope. The JWST will not be a complete successor, because it will not be sensitive to all of the light wavelengths that Hubble can see.   

from wikipedia

the only way we can send a bigger succesor of Hubble  to space without bigger rockets  is i think the foldable mirrors or somehing like that.

but for now without Hlv we will not have a visible light telescope to space for the next 10 years at least...

Offline MP99

Compare as Bolden's team has a SD-HLV against the other HLV that can happen relatively quickly: the Atlas V Heavy. With a max lift of 140mT, and the added benefit of the ACES flexible Centaur coming along with it, it would not only serve as the platform for a HLV but for orbital tugs, refueling stations and a lunar lander. That's a lot of bang for the buck, which SD-HLV/Direct can't match.

Reminder: DIRECT also has an ACES upper stage.

How does the development cost for a 140mT Atlas compare with J-24x/J-24xSH? Upper stage costs would be the same, I presume.

I presume that not requiring an upper stage helps the costs for LEO SD-HLV launches.

Martin

Edit: BTW, I favour J-120 for the initial SD-HLV config - to minimise costs during the early phase.
« Last Edit: 03/08/2010 08:39 pm by MP99 »

Offline jimgagnon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Compare as Bolden's team has a SD-HLV against the other HLV that can happen relatively quickly: the Atlas V Heavy. With a max lift of 140mT, and the added benefit of the ACES flexible Centaur coming along with it, it would not only serve as the platform for a HLV but for orbital tugs, refueling stations and a lunar lander. That's a lot of bang for the buck, which SD-HLV/Direct can't match.
Reminder: DIRECT also has an ACES upper stage.

How does the development cost for a 140mT Atlas compare with J-24x/J-24xSH? Upper stage costs would be the same, I presume.

I presume that not requiring an upper stage helps the costs for LEO SD-HLV launches.

I would love to see a comprehensive comparison of costs of Atlas V Heavy vs. Direct. However, the important point I want to get across is that NASA shouldn't build or operate its own heavy lifter; if it does, then it's impossible for a free market in heavy lift to get established. Rather, the technology should be transferred to a private company that would have incentives to minimize costs that are never present in a Federal program.

Offline jimgagnon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
But nobody can say with any certainty what IS required, only what MIGHT be required. But there is ONE guarantee. If we do not adopt a SD-HLV, we face the same scenario as the post-Apollo days: brain drain. And the time it takes for NASA to get its act together (and congress to fund something post-mordem) may indeed cripple the American space industry.

There is a key difference between now and the post-Apollo days: Bolden's team is actively starting up a commercial space sector that was absent in the 1970's that should be able to absorb a lot of the aerospace talent freed up by NASA leaving the commodity business of launch to low earth orbit. This talent will now have multiple outlets for expression, as opposed to the one-size-fits-all approach at NASA.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Compare as Bolden's team has a SD-HLV against the other HLV that can happen relatively quickly: the Atlas V Heavy. With a max lift of 140mT, and the added benefit of the ACES flexible Centaur coming along with it, it would not only serve as the platform for a HLV but for orbital tugs, refueling stations and a lunar lander. That's a lot of bang for the buck, which SD-HLV/Direct can't match.
Reminder: DIRECT also has an ACES upper stage.

How does the development cost for a 140mT Atlas compare with J-24x/J-24xSH? Upper stage costs would be the same, I presume.

I presume that not requiring an upper stage helps the costs for LEO SD-HLV launches.

I would love to see a comprehensive comparison of costs of Atlas V Heavy vs. Direct. However, the important point I want to get across is that NASA shouldn't build or operate its own heavy lifter; if it does, then it's impossible for a free market in heavy lift to get established. Rather, the technology should be transferred to a private company that would have incentives to minimize costs that are never present in a Federal program.

AFAIK, the Atlas V Phase 3B (the 8.4m-diameter 140t IMLEO version) would use the ACES-41 common upper stage and would need four twin-engine 5.4m-diameter kerolox strap-ons.  The SDLV-Inline like DIRECT Jupiter would have an "ACES-181" a much larger upper stage.  It would also only need two RSRM or 5-seg solid strap-ons, all for about 120t IMLEO.  I wouldn't be surprised if the cost/launched tonnage came out quite similar.

FWIW, I think that the Atlas-V Phase 2 (which maxes out at about 105t IMLEO) is a better EELV-derived heavy lifter.  In its base form, it is an LEO crew vehicle launcher with performance comparable to the Delta-IVH and Atlas-VH (ideal for Orion to ISS).  It can also fly in Heavy (3-core) or Super-Heavy (5-core) configurations as well as various SRM-boosted options, which are unlikely to be crew-rated but will probably be used in cargo launches.  It also has a 8.4m/28ft PLF in its maximum launch forms.  With propellent depots, A-VP2 is pretty much the maximum required, enough for single-launch lunar or NEO missions.  Heck, you could even use it to launch a segmented Mars vehicle.

A "free market" in heavy lift isn't going to happen as NASA is a sole customer right now.  The "market" wouldn't support more than one system unless something very launch-intensive and requiring sustained effort over years emerges.  IMHO, commercial launch capability will stall at 25t IMLEO until cryogenic fuel depots are available.  Even after that, there will mostly only the most limited BEO opportunities (unless a Moon Outpost goes ahead).  A truely commercial LV of IMLEO above 50t is unlikely.

SDLV only makes sense if you want to do stuff with it during the last half decade of the ISSP.  If you don't need that capacity before then, then you might as well develop new technologies and try to develop a better 'clean sheet' design.  For what could you need such lift capability? Well, there is still the upmass issue (I'm still not convinced that the ISS will last to 2020 without something to replace the shuttle's lift capability).  I will also admit that I would like to see early BEO missions running in parallel with the ISS (lunar flybys, lunar orbiters and maybe even the earliest lander tests).
"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 Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
A "free market" in heavy [any] lift isn't going to happen with NASA as a sole customer.

Getting a non-NASA destination up there is far more important than commercial crew to ISS, and if a non-NASA destination is deployed to LEO, NewSpace will have all the business it can handle, without gutting the rest of NASA.
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Quote
A "free market" in heavy [any] lift isn't going to happen with NASA as a sole customer.

Getting a non-NASA destination up there is far more important than commercial crew to ISS, and if a non-NASA destination is deployed to LEO, NewSpace will have all the business it can handle, without gutting the rest of NASA.
Of course, any crew spacecraft launch vehicle besides a NASA launch vehicle will already have other customers (with the possible exception of the Taurus II, but that's almost surely because I don't know about people wanting to use the Taurus II, not because there isn't anyone). The Falcon 9 _will_ be used to launch other customers. The Dragon capsule _will_ be used for other customers in the form of DragonLab (the Foton has shown there's at least a small market for this, already). Of course, the Atlas V and Delta IV already launch lots of other payloads besides NASA ones. This is already known, even if there's no other space station in orbit and no space tourism market (of course, it is already established by selling Soyuz seats that there IS at least a small orbital tourism market).

That's not to say you don't already know all this. I'm just saying this for the benefit of those who seem to think that there is no commercial space market overlap for commercial crew. I mean, even if there's no market for commercial crew besides NASA's astronauts, there's plenty of reuse and overlap and cost-sharing with unmanned commercial payloads (including at least the Dragon spacecraft).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Quote
A "free market" in heavy [any] lift isn't going to happen with NASA as a sole customer.

Getting a non-NASA destination up there is far more important than commercial crew to ISS, and if a non-NASA destination is deployed to LEO, NewSpace will have all the business it can handle, without gutting the rest of NASA.

What we are arriving at here is the concept that NASA can serve as an anchor tenant for new human spaceflight systems that would then provide the required transportation for private orbital platforms.

Someone has to break the "chicken and egg" syndrome that has locked out commercial space development until now, and Obama has chosen to be that someone.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Getting a non-NASA destination up there is far more important than commercial crew to ISS

And the lack of crew vehicles is what's holding it back. And that's precisely what Obama's plan addresses.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
A "free market" in heavy [any] lift isn't going to happen with NASA as a sole customer.

Getting a non-NASA destination up there is far more important than commercial crew to ISS, and if a non-NASA destination is deployed to LEO, NewSpace will have all the business it can handle, without gutting the rest of NASA.

What we are arriving at here is the concept that NASA can serve as an anchor tenant for new human spaceflight systems that would then provide the required transportation for private orbital platforms.

Someone has to break the "chicken and egg" syndrome that has locked out commercial space development until now, and Obama has chosen to be that someone.

Why can't this be part of a compromise bill that can win broad support in Congress? I know of very few people object to commercial crew programs to ISS and I am a huge fan of the MirCorp attempt - Dan Goldin flubbed that one big time.

Anyway, aren't you in the Orphans of Apollo video?

So, why can't commercial crew to ISS (as an anchor to stimulate non-NASA destinations) be one integral part of a package deal?

For example, I believe the DIRECT advocates here have been in favor of commercial crew to ISS for several years, already.
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Getting a non-NASA destination up there is far more important than commercial crew to ISS

And the lack of crew vehicles is what's holding it back. And that's precisely what Obama's plan addresses.

I disagree concerning what's holding us back from non-NASA destinations in LEO.

I assert it is ITAR and NASA jealousy of non-NASA destinations in LEO as evidenced by the stories about Mike Griffin shutting down a private plan to provide Bigelow a crew taxi.

I simply do not believe commercial crew to ISS will transition to non-NASA destinations, not unless Charlie Bolden explicitly states that is the intention of this new plan.
« Last Edit: 03/09/2010 01:22 am by Bill White »
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
So, why can't commercial crew to ISS (as an anchor to stimulate non-NASA destinations) be one integral part of a package deal?

What you are proposing is a two tier system under which some players are more equal than others. NASA employees and traditional NASA contractors would get most of the money and wouldn't have to compete, commercial players would have to compete for whatever scraps are left. That's not what I call a compromise. Nor is it fair or an efficient use of taxpayers' money.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
I simply do not believe commercial crew to ISS will transition to non-NASA destinations, not unless Charlie Bolden explicitly states that is the intention of this new plan.

Excuse me? What about Bigelow? Bigelow is working with SpaceX and Boeing and may have been working with LM on crew solutions.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
So, why can't commercial crew to ISS (as an anchor to stimulate non-NASA destinations) be one integral part of a package deal?

What you are proposing is a two tier system under which some players are more equal than others. NASA employees and traditional NASA contractors would get most of the money and wouldn't have to compete, commercial players would have to compete for whatever scraps are left. That's not what I call a compromise. Nor is it fair or an efficient use of taxpayers' money.

Huh?

Commercial crew / cargo would be an open competition run in an impartial manner.

A NASA run SD-HLV (Jupiter) would NOT service ISS unless commercial crew proved unavailable and would be pointed out beyond LEO.

As for practical politics, has ANY member of Congress except Dana Rohrbacher endorsed the February 1st plan "as is" ??

And I submit having Dana Rohrbacher as an "ally" in this case is more of a bug than a feature.
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
I simply do not believe commercial crew to ISS will transition to non-NASA destinations, not unless Charlie Bolden explicitly states that is the intention of this new plan.

Excuse me? What about Bigelow? Bigelow is working with SpaceX and Boeing and may have been working with LM on crew solutions.

Yes, and if Mike Griffin had not shut it down we would have private taxis to LEO whether or not we get commercial crew to ISS. Commercial crew simply is NOT the linchpin, here.

Once again, until Charlie Bolden explicitly says non-NASA destinations are part of the plan -- soon -- I smell a trap.
« Last Edit: 03/09/2010 01:28 am by Bill White »
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
A NASA run SD-HLV (Jupiter) would NOT service ISS unless commercial crew proved unavailable and would be pointed out beyond LEO.

Exactly and this would get most of the money and would be shielded from competition. A two tier system.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Once again, until Charlie Bolden explicitly says non-NASA destinations are part of the plan -- soon -- I smell a trap.

A trap? What kind of a trap? What do you think Bolden/Obama is trying to achieve?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
A NASA run SD-HLV (Jupiter) would NOT service ISS unless commercial crew proved unavailable and would be pointed out beyond LEO.

Exactly and this would get most of the money and would be shielded from competition. A two tier system.

So what?

If we get Bigelow hotels and R&D facilities up and running, private carrier launch rates will soon swamp NASA launch rates and NASA can then be simply ignored by NewSpace.

Get non-NASA destinations up there and NewSpace can go around rather than through NASA. And avoid a massive fight with Congress.

Douglas MacArthur called it island hopping. Nazi panzers went through the Ardennes rather than the Maginot Line.

Why fight Congress head on when you can get what you want without the fight? Unless it's ideologically driven?

« Last Edit: 03/09/2010 01:33 am by Bill White »
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Once again, until Charlie Bolden explicitly says non-NASA destinations are part of the plan -- soon -- I smell a trap.

A trap? What kind of a trap? What do you think Bolden/Obama is trying to achieve?

I see no evidence that they desire non-NASA destinations in LEO, sooner rather than later. Can you offer any?

As for Obama, I believe he desires that NASA not cause him any headaches. Otherwise he doesn't much care.

John Holdren? I don't know. He might desire to shut down human spaceflight altogether. I don't know.

Lori Garver? She believes in the plan you describe.

Charlie Bolden? A loyal Marine trying to serve his CinC as best he can.
« Last Edit: 03/09/2010 01:36 am by Bill White »
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Tags:
 

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