Purely IMHO and FWIW.I agree that a compromise of some kind will emerge. Whilst I think that the basic apparent intent of the plan (to pave the way for sustained human BEO exploration by way of developing needed technologies), I think that other things that, frankly, are best listed as "nice but non-critical" won't make it. Research for an advanced technology HLV will probably be one of them.There is such apparent lack of confidence in Congress regarding the commercial option that I cannot see it remaining as the near-term solution to US-indigenous human space flight needs. There is also clearly a lot of disquiet at the current intent to have NASA, via commercial providers, developing... er... something to go... er... somewhere by... er... sometime.I thus expect Congress to decide on something like this:1. Shuttle extension until ~2015 or Orion on EELV until commercial crew launch is in place and, more importantly, as a back-up to commercial options until they are fully reliable; a) If they go for SSP extension, "Recertification" is quietly forgotten when the SSP guys point out that they do it anyway; b) If Orion becomes the back-up ISS crew access, look for a lot of pressure to have something like the DIRECT team's "Apollo 8 Redux" idea written into law;2. Development of follow-on HLV-M to take over high-volume support of ISS to begin immediately. By force of necessity, this will either be some flavour of SDHLV or something like the EELV Phase 1, but very severely cost-limited;3. Nothing will be set in stone about the post-ISS heavy lift. Will it be SDLV? Will it be EELV-derived? Will they use HLV-Ms (one or more of J-130-style SDLVs, EELV+ACES and F9+Raptor) and depots? Will it be something completely new? That will remain to be seen based on determination of mission to be made when R&D will begin (~2015/16);4. NASA will be told to have a series of 'Presidential Cycle Goals' - Something that will drive NASA HSF activities for 3- to 4-year cycles. The first one, IMHO, will be to get Orion flying OR to get the post-shuttle HLV-M to initial flight test status by 2012/13. The next will be to have post-ISS thinking set to the point where decisions as to HLV and exploration archetecture can be made and to have HLV-M and its crew vehicle at FOC by 2015/16. Finally, to have the first BEO mission flown by the end of 2020.
Purely IMHO and FWIW.(snip)4. NASA will be told to have a series of 'Presidential Cycle Goals' - Something that will drive NASA HSF activities for 3- to 4-year cycles. The first one, IMHO, will be to get Orion flying OR to get the post-shuttle HLV-M to initial flight test status by 2012/13. The next will be to have post-ISS thinking set to the point where decisions as to HLV and exploration archetecture can be made and to have HLV-M and its crew vehicle at FOC by 2015/16. Finally, to have the first BEO mission flown by the end of 2020.
Be advised that 9B of Cx resulting in one very limited test did not inspire these kids - many told me they saw it as a meaningless diversion.
- Ron Paul may become US president in 2013 and dismantle NASA- Another Shuttle accident may occur- ISS may break down or be disabled by an OD strike- The US economy might collapse completely and the Second Great Depression may come (remember, the first one didn't start until around 1931, there was also a "recovery" of sorts after the '29 crash before things went really bad...)- etc.All of the above would spell the end of NASA / US manned spaceflight.As the Chinese would say: We are living in interesting times...
There *are* ways to do realistic and useful exploration in cislunar space ...HLVs *might* be needed down the road, but there's a ton you can do just as well without them.~Jon
Nice to see you're thinking positively Chris The first two won't happen imo. I won't talk about Ron Paul, but the reason the shuttles will be fine is because they get such a thorough checkup for damage. After 2 loses already NASA has become very careful when operating them. I think it was Mike who said "I challenge you to tell me the shuttles aren't safe". An extra 3-5 years of shuttle flights won't hurt. (I hope)
I'm beginning to think that you are just anti-HLV regardless. I hope I'm wrong. It would be instructive to me, and probably others, if you would define for us where you think the tipping point is where it makes sense to engage the HLV vs. the EELV system. As already detailed further up, we believe that it is in the area of ~300mT to LEO per year. Where is your tipping point and why?
Quote from: clongton on 02/25/2010 11:57 amI'm beginning to think that you are just anti-HLV regardless. I hope I'm wrong. It would be instructive to me, and probably others, if you would define for us where you think the tipping point is where it makes sense to engage the HLV vs. the EELV system. As already detailed further up, we believe that it is in the area of ~300mT to LEO per year. Where is your tipping point and why?Jon will speak for himself, but I believe up to at least 1000mT can be done comfortably with EELV Phase 1.
Now, for my personal guess on what will come out of these hearings: Everybody in Congress is opposed to the current NASA budget (but everyone has a different reason). So they can't agree on any alternative, but they all agree to ax the budget.In the end: NASA does not get the projected budget increase (because the budget is not approved), but there still is no plan and no vision. Meanwhile, Shuttle infrastructure completes dismantlement, and Lori succeeds in burning those bridges down, removing the SDLV option for all time.Commercial development is further delayed because of lack of budget. Gap is further increased. US Astronauts fly to the ISS (which is extended to 2020) exclusively on Soyuz. And we all pray nothing goes wrong on ISS.In the end, we got a lot of political bickering and nothing to show for it.How's that for an optimistic vision?
You skipped the "why" part. Please supply the data that backs up your position.
Seriously though my guess is that they'll do a shuttle extension. Nelson and Gibson both said they want an HLV and suggested continuing Constellation so NASA can develop one, but that still results in job losses and time wasted on R&D. If you go for an extension you don't have job loses, you can service ISS properly and you can build a SDHLV later on. That's what I think will happen more or less.
Quote from: clongton on 02/25/2010 12:08 pmYou skipped the "why" part. Please supply the data that backs up your position.EELV Phase 1 would have a payload capacity of 40-50mT. The EELV infrastructure was originally designed for 20 (maybe even 40) launches a year for Delta and Atlas individually. And Falcon 9 is nearing operational capability.You might not even need EELV Phase 1 for that. You would still need an EDS, and if it's ACES then EELV Phase 1 would be what rolls out.
Quote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 12:09 pmSeriously though my guess is that they'll do a shuttle extension. Nelson and Gibson both said they want an HLV and suggested continuing Constellation so NASA can develop one, but that still results in job losses and time wasted on R&D. If you go for an extension you don't have job loses, you can service ISS properly and you can build a SDHLV later on. That's what I think will happen more or less.That's what would happen if politicians were intelligent...
Let's not forget that the guys we saw yesterday aren't the only ones who vote in the end. Even if there were a consensus amongst the "space senators" (and we're far from that, currently), there's still the rest of the Senate and the House who would need to be convinced. And most of those guys don't really care about space.
But then, I'm no American, so I may be wrong about that (I'm just extrapolating from my own experience with my country's politicians, who, I'm sure, are just as savvy and capable as US politicians... )
The one thing that is true is that time is running out. A decision will have to be taken, and quickly. Otherwise, we risk losing everything (as soon as the next major disaster strikes, space will be forgotten...)
Perhaps what's needed is a prudent decision and not a fast one.
Tell me you'll get back to me with the numbers; that's an acceptable and reasoned response, but don't just shoot back with more of the same. This thread is fact-based, not an opinion poll.
BTW, is that a KOTOR Republic Cruiser in your profile? Looks cool!
Quote from: Bill White on 02/25/2010 03:36 amRoss also writes that below that same threshold, EELV is less expensive per kilogram delivered to the lunar surface than with EELV. Therefore this is a bean counting conclusion, not an ideological conclusion.It's ridiculous not to compare to EELV Phase 1.
Ross also writes that below that same threshold, EELV is less expensive per kilogram delivered to the lunar surface than with EELV. Therefore this is a bean counting conclusion, not an ideological conclusion.
