Is A Human Space Flight Compromise Emerging? (STS Extension/SD HLV etc)

[Chris Bergin]

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/04/is-a-human-spac.html

Hands up if this would be very exciting...

*Chris has his hand up*

Extension to SD HLV - that's always been the no brainer to HLV. And "a human-rated exploration spacecraft that only operates in space" answers the question about making shuttle more than just ISS runs, and the follow on interim usage of SD HLV. Orion Lite for commercial.

[robertross]

Half up...I can't wait until these cost issues related to Direct (inline SDHLV) being higher are seen more prevalent in the Shuttle-C case. Sure they could go back to inline down the road, but there likely won't be money for that (unless they figure it would come about during the years going to Mars or NEO, ect)

[Namechange User]

The part in the NW post about costs is accurate as is your statement about possible evolution. 

[mikegi]

I don't understand the exploration spacecraft that's assembled on-orbit and "only operates in space". Does that mean the exploration ship returns to LEO/ISS and the crew transfers back to the Orion Lite for reentry? I like the idea but I thought there were significant propellent issues that prevented it from being a valid option.

[Bill White]

From the link:

This Shuttle-C HLV will carry cargo, but no crew. The Shuttle-C will be a direct upgrade to the existing Space Shuttle Orbiter system with only the Orbiter replaced with engines and a cargo carrier. Everything else remains the way it is now.

Sidemount would seem to assure that the SD-HLV cannot carry Orion and that creates a secure niche for other crew launchers, free from competition from an in-line SD-HLV.

[Namechange User]

cycler? 

[Namechange User]

The crew "issues" with respect to sidemount are not insurmountable by any means.

[Bill White]

The crew "issues" with respect to sidemount are not insurmountable by any means.

Technically? I am not qualified to dispute with you.

Politically? Making it as difficult as possible to fly crew on the SD-HLV could be seen as a feature rather than a bug.

[Namechange User]

I don't disagree with that.  If they want it to be cargo only, fine.  However, the capability is still there if necessary. 

[vt_hokie]

Obviously these are rumors to be taken with a grain of salt, but that being said, I'm not exactly clear on the idea behind this initial exploration spacecraft utilizing unused ISS components and being assembled at the ISS.  Will it be a part of ISS?  A separate vehicle capable of leaving and returning to LEO?

[robertross]

I don't disagree with that.  If they want it to be cargo only, fine.  However, the capability is still there if necessary. 

Well that's the one thing I am not upset about either. It does cover a lot of the bases for future upgradability: MAF, SSME, infrastructure, skillset...

I'd like to know if some of the CxP developments like J-2X will be retained, or the new test stand at Stennis will be used for a future high altitude engine developments.

The only issue is whether there will be money to switch over to an inline J246SH (to give the larger throw mass for lunar or Mars missions).

[robertross]

Obviously these are rumors to be taken with a grain of salt, but that being said, I'm not exactly clear on the idea behind this initial exploration spacecraft utilizing unused ISS components and being assembled at the ISS.  Will it be a part of ISS?  A separate vehicle capable of leaving and returning to LEO?

It seems to be relying on the existing capability learned, developed, BUILT by the International Partners  (hint hint)

[HammerD]

I don't disagree with that.  If they want it to be cargo only, fine.  However, the capability is still there if necessary. 

Well that's the one thing I am not upset about either. It does cover a lot of the bases for future upgradability: MAF, SSME, infrastructure, skillset...

I'd like to know if some of the CxP developments like J-2X will be retained, or the new test stand at Stennis will be used for a future high altitude engine developments.

The only issue is whether there will be money to switch over to an inline J246SH (to give the larger throw mass for lunar or Mars missions).

I don't know, to me that entire article sounds like a reall really stupid idea and there probably is not one grain of truth to it.

[Rabidpanda]

Honestly I don't see the need for a sidemount SDHLV, unless of course keeping jobs is your priority and not lowering costs.

[Chris Bergin]

I don't disagree with that.  If they want it to be cargo only, fine.  However, the capability is still there if necessary. 

Well that's the one thing I am not upset about either. It does cover a lot of the bases for future upgradability: MAF, SSME, infrastructure, skillset...

I'd like to know if some of the CxP developments like J-2X will be retained, or the new test stand at Stennis will be used for a future high altitude engine developments.

The only issue is whether there will be money to switch over to an inline J246SH (to give the larger throw mass for lunar or Mars missions).

I don't know, to me that entire article sounds like a reall really stupid idea and there probably is not one grain of truth to it.

That's harsh, Hammer. As much as I don't have anything new to report at this time, there's certainly movement towards - at the very least - the Extenson SD HLV route...and that's been happening for a while now.

[robertross]

I don't disagree with that.  If they want it to be cargo only, fine.  However, the capability is still there if necessary. 

Well that's the one thing I am not upset about either. It does cover a lot of the bases for future upgradability: MAF, SSME, infrastructure, skillset...

I'd like to know if some of the CxP developments like J-2X will be retained, or the new test stand at Stennis will be used for a future high altitude engine developments.

The only issue is whether there will be money to switch over to an inline J246SH (to give the larger throw mass for lunar or Mars missions).

I don't know, to me that entire article sounds like a reall really stupid idea and there probably is not one grain of truth to it.

For once I disagree.

I could actually see most of this coming true. I dispute some of the claims that a side cargo carrier will end up being cheaper, but that's here nor there. What's important to focus on is the rest of it.

1. Shuttle extension until commercial is ready to service ISS, and to support ISS for the 2020 extension
2. Orion (of sorts)
3. Commercial variant as a back-up / redundant capability
4. Transportation to and from the moon, to get our feet wet before going on to Mars/ect.
5. Retain R&D funding from FY2011 preliminary budget, specifically propellant depots

It hits on MANY important capabilities. I'm 80% on board with this, if it comes to fruition.

The MOST IMPORTANT capability is shuttle extension to support ISS. With this one action, many of the doors are still open to future discussion on HLV talks, whatever they may be.

My reservation is the shuttle-C costing & the need for future upgrading which WILL be required at some point, the timeline dependant on WHEN we wish to take that BIG step forward.

[Robotbeat]

I like the idea of a space-only craft. It removes the need to worry about the reentry entirely. It doesn't make sense without propellant depots because its IMLEO mass is considerably higher. Also makes it easier to change other parts of your architecture, like the capsule/spaceplane or lander. It's good for a backbone of a lunar, flex path, or Mars mission. The same craft could be used for any of those. I like it because it really is a beyond-LEO craft.

The Shuttle extension is good, too.

I like the idea of using our existing in-space infrastructure and building on it.

[A_M_Swallow]

I don't understand the exploration spacecraft that's assembled on-orbit and "only operates in space". Does that mean the exploration ship returns to LEO/ISS and the crew transfers back to the Orion Lite for reentry? I like the idea but I thought there were significant propellent issues that prevented it from being a valid option.

A very good question.  Keep asking high level design questions like that.

(One off) ISS modules built into an exploration ship!    This sounds like pork drove the design rather than efficiency.  Using existing components can save a lot of time and money.  However using components outside of their design environment can lead to an integration nightmare.

[robertross]

I like the idea of a space-only craft. It removes the need to worry about the reentry entirely. It doesn't make sense without propellant depots because its IMLEO mass is considerably higher. Also makes it easier to change other parts of your architecture, like the capsule/spaceplane or lander. It's good for a backbone of a lunar, flex path, or Mars mission. The same craft could be used for any of those. I like it because it really is a beyond-LEO craft.

The Shuttle extension is good, too.

I like the idea of using our existing in-space infrastructure and building on it.

I'd like to know if they will rely on VASIMR for propulsion. It has some excellent opportunities for ISS as a staging area for commercial ressuply, allowing for a hand-off from commercial to goverment carriers, limiting their liability and maximizing the commonality of vehicles.

Think of it, just dock to station for lunar re-supply. Commercial crew and cargo vehicles never change, they are the same boiler plate. Properly planned, there 'could' be a seamless transition from ISS to BEO.

[vt_hokie]

I like the idea of a space-only craft. It removes the need to worry about the reentry entirely.

Me too.  I've always thought such a craft, met in LEO by reusable spaceplanes, was the way to go!