@ sdsdsThe obvious solution (to a lay-person like me) is to human-rate Atlas-V and use Delta-IVH purely as a cargo hauler to throw mission modules and propulsion modules into LEO.I remember seeing a NASA graphic during the Augustine hearings of an Ares-I backed up by multiple Delta-IVHs as CaLVs. I was impressed by that image but immediately turned the Ares-I into an Atlas-VH and put ACES-class common upper stages on the Deltas, turning tem into 50t-class launchers.* Fully commercial launch services? CHECK* Multi-vendor compatibility? CHECK (Dragon could be used as a crew launcher if you use aerocapture EOI rather than direct descent)* Kerolox-core crew launcher? CHECK* Propellent transfer-ready? CHECK* BEO exploration capability? CHECKIt is a win-win scenario and I don't get why NASA isn't starting now. Orion on A-VH could happen by 2014 and ACES by 2016 - We're looking at a lunar orbiter by 2016 and NEO by 2020.
I don't get why NASA isn't starting now.
FinalFrontier, you proposed a solution. What is the problem you are attempting to solve?
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 04/28/2010 10:22 amThe obvious solution (to a lay-person like me) is to human-rate Atlas-V and use Delta-IVH purely as a cargo hauler[...] Orion on A-VH could happen by 2014Delta 4 is good vehicle but its expensive. And using it just for crew seems a bit too expensive (remember delta needs more modifications than atlas to be human rated.).
The obvious solution (to a lay-person like me) is to human-rate Atlas-V and use Delta-IVH purely as a cargo hauler[...] Orion on A-VH could happen by 2014
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 04/28/2010 10:22 am@ sdsdsThe obvious solution (to a lay-person like me) is to human-rate Atlas-V and use Delta-IVH purely as a cargo hauler to throw mission modules and propulsion modules into LEO.Delta 4 is good vehicle but its expensive. And using it just for crew seems a bit too expensive (remember delta needs more modifications than atlas to be human rated.).
@ sdsdsThe obvious solution (to a lay-person like me) is to human-rate Atlas-V and use Delta-IVH purely as a cargo hauler to throw mission modules and propulsion modules into LEO.
Plus, even if the existing VIF could be modified to handle AVH,
Quote from: sdsds on 04/29/2010 07:50 pmPlus, even if the existing VIF could be modified to handle AVH, The VIF is alread modified for the Heavy. Only the MLP needs to be outfitted.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 04/27/2010 04:26 pmit would appear the only thing needed to man rate atlas V is that system Jim referenced. Delta 4 I would imagine is a different story.The only thing needed to human-rate Atlas V is NASA giving ULA the green light to do so. To human-rate Delta IV-Heavy, NASA needs to first convince ULA to human-rate what would be, in ULA's opinion, the "wrong" launch system.I suspect (offering no evidence whatsoever) that ULA leadership thinks human-rating Atlas V is optimal because:1A) Atlas has such stunning human spaceflight lineage. You just can't buy PR value like, "Atlas launched the first American astronaut into orbit."
it would appear the only thing needed to man rate atlas V is that system Jim referenced. Delta 4 I would imagine is a different story.
Quote from: sdsds on 04/28/2010 04:33 amQuote from: FinalFrontier on 04/27/2010 04:26 pmit would appear the only thing needed to man rate atlas V is that system Jim referenced. Delta 4 I would imagine is a different story.The only thing needed to human-rate Atlas V is NASA giving ULA the green light to do so. To human-rate Delta IV-Heavy, NASA needs to first convince ULA to human-rate what would be, in ULA's opinion, the "wrong" launch system.I suspect (offering no evidence whatsoever) that ULA leadership thinks human-rating Atlas V is optimal because:1A) Atlas has such stunning human spaceflight lineage. You just can't buy PR value like, "Atlas launched the first American astronaut into orbit."Up to Atlas III, sure. Atlas V has far less in common with Mercury-Atlas than Ares I does with the Space Shuttle. (Though I'm sure that won't stop people from making that case for Atlas, but they'd be even more dishonest than those claiming Ares I is safest because of its shuttle heritage).
If we're going to go with existing and proven tech, why not build new Apollo capsules?
LEM using at least 50% composits, with an asscent stage that could be either mostly composit in structure, or using a Bigalow inflatable as the ascent stage.
I propose that we use existing technology and scale it up in phases as needed, both from the government sector and the commercial sector. What I propose can reduce the gap, save us money, do exploration very soon, allow for game changing research and development funding in the immeadiate future, and leave the door open to build new engines or Launch Vehicles if they become needed. ....I propose to HR the Atlas 5, and direct Lockheed Martin to build a stripped down, Orion Lite leo crew taxi, specifcally designed for ISS to reduce our crew launch capability gap.Also they should be directed to begin the development of an ACES 41 stage.In the meant time, I recommend awarding a contract to Spacex to human rate Falcon 9 and to create a crewable dragon as soon as possible, with a target IOC of sometime in 2013. On the government side we already have an HLV: Two srbs, 3 SSMES, and a core (external fuel tank). So lets go ahead and simply put the pieces together. Build a SDHLV inline HLV, but not the largest one possible. Start with the j 130 and consider building a 5 diameter second stage. Since funding is limited, the pace will be slow, but the vehicle will not be needed for BEO exploration immeadietly. ...
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 04/25/2010 08:17 pmI propose that we use existing technology and scale it up in phases as needed, both from the government sector and the commercial sector. What I propose can reduce the gap, save us money, do exploration very soon, allow for game changing research and development funding in the immeadiate future, and leave the door open to build new engines or Launch Vehicles if they become needed. ....I propose to HR the Atlas 5, and direct Lockheed Martin to build a stripped down, Orion Lite leo crew taxi, specifcally designed for ISS to reduce our crew launch capability gap.Also they should be directed to begin the development of an ACES 41 stage.In the meant time, I recommend awarding a contract to Spacex to human rate Falcon 9 and to create a crewable dragon as soon as possible, with a target IOC of sometime in 2013. On the government side we already have an HLV: Two srbs, 3 SSMES, and a core (external fuel tank). So lets go ahead and simply put the pieces together. Build a SDHLV inline HLV, but not the largest one possible. Start with the j 130 and consider building a 5 diameter second stage. Since funding is limited, the pace will be slow, but the vehicle will not be needed for BEO exploration immeadietly. ...Sorry, but haven't seen this thread until now. Here are my thoughts.You've proposed paying to develop two distinct crew launch spacecraft and launch vehicles *and* a super heavy lifter. The Constellation cancellation tells me that there's no money for this much development effort. I like the idea of using existing launch systems. Without money, that's clearly a given. I don't like the idea of doing Orion Lite *and* Dragon or something else. NASA should have just one commercial human launch competition and be done with it. Lowest bidder wins. Winner take all. Unfortunately, NASA is being forced to continue Orion via CRV while also opening bidding for another crew spacecraft. Unless Orion wins the commercial crew launch contract, the Agency will end up wasting money on two spacecraft efforts. IMOA super heavy, shuttle derived or otherwise, would be nice, but it isn't going to happen as long as current conditions (i.e. Obama in the White House) prevail. The only remaining path to heavier lift is to gradually improve existing launch systems. The Aces 41 stage you mention, for example, would dramatically increase EELV Heavy LEO performance. But even that would take major bucks not currently available to develop.I'm convinced that in the current budget climate, LEO depot is the only way left to go anywhere but ISS [1]. Unfortunately, NASA is making no such plans.IMO - Ed Kyle[1] www.spacelaunchreport.com/moonslo.html
The extended duration mission kit would mitigate these issues. IIRC the Centaur would be capable of several days of operation with it.