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.
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.
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.
Quote from: jimgagnon on 03/08/2010 04:26 pmCompare 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.
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.
Quote from: MP99 on 03/08/2010 08:35 pmQuote from: jimgagnon on 03/08/2010 04:26 pmCompare 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.
A "free market" in heavy [any] lift isn't going to happen with NASA as a sole customer.
QuoteA "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.
Getting a non-NASA destination up there is far more important than commercial crew to ISS
Quote from: Bill White on 03/08/2010 10:28 pmQuoteA "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.
Quote from: Bill White on 03/08/2010 10:28 pmGetting a non-NASA destination up there is far more important than commercial crew to ISSAnd the lack of crew vehicles is what's holding it back. And that's precisely what Obama's plan addresses.
So, why can't commercial crew to ISS (as an anchor to stimulate non-NASA destinations) be one integral part of a package deal?
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.
Quote from: Bill White on 03/09/2010 01:16 amSo, 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.
Quote from: Bill White on 03/09/2010 01:20 amI 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.
A NASA run SD-HLV (Jupiter) would NOT service ISS unless commercial crew proved unavailable and would be pointed out beyond LEO.
Once again, until Charlie Bolden explicitly says non-NASA destinations are part of the plan -- soon -- I smell a trap.
Quote from: Bill White on 03/09/2010 01:25 amA 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.
Quote from: Bill White on 03/09/2010 01:27 amOnce 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?