I've been meaning to post this for days, but the rapid pace of news of late had me rethinking where I stand on everything, including SLS. I've been wondering if we would be better off seeding ULA funds for accelerating the evolution of the Atlas V. The fully-evolved launcher would be the centerpiece for NASA's human exploration program. This would only be practical if it could be done on a schedule comparible (or quicker) to SLS at a cost substantially lower than what it would take to develop SLS.
From what I know, SLS is essentially evolved STS, and not entirely new (from a development point of view), so this shouldn't be that much more costly than evolution of that other rocket launcher - the Atlas V. I say that now admittedly ignorant of any facts, which is why I post this. Has ULA studied the cost of what it will take to fully evolve the Atlas V? How long would this take? Could it accellerate with the help of NASA funding?
Knowing that - if this route is taken - the evolved Atlas V would remain a commercial launch vehicle. In my opinion, this is okay, as its launch services would be paid out of a BEO extension of the crewed commercial and COTS programs.
If the savings are as significant as I think they would be, some of the savings would be available for habitation, infrastructure, landing and ascent vehicles, terrestrial transportation, experiments, and ISS upgrades and expansion modules BEO mission support.
More savings can be found by allowing ESA to contribute ATV-derived service modules and inviting other nations to participate.
I say that now admittedly ignorant of any facts, which is why I post this. 1, Has ULA studied the cost of what it will take to fully evolve the Atlas V?
2. How long would this take?
3. Could it accellerate with the help of NASA funding?
4. More savings can be found by allowing ESA to contribute ATV-derived service modules
1. yes, as far back as 2003
2. Varies on the funding profile
3. It isn't going to happen unless NASA funds it. ULA has no reason to fund it nor the USAF.
4. No, bad idea. SM is too integral to the MPCV.
So, this would require another NASA Authorization Act by Congress?
Still, two essential questions remain unanswered:
1. Would there be a substantial savings going this route over SLS?
2. Would this be substantially quicker to develop ocompared to SLS?
I know for #2, at least, this route would see manned LEO test launches happen years sooner.
I forgot to mention in my OP that giving seed money to ULA would not and should not grant them a monopoly on BEO human-rated launch services to NASA. NASA should always have the option to contract other companies for such services, if available. This includes the SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy, whenever possible for BEO COTS-like services, or other non-Orion crew and support services.
If NASA chose to pursue STS via an AJAX-like path (shuttle core with CCB strap-on boosters), then it could use the unspent billion dollars or so of the 2011 STS funding to start on man-rating the CCB. One could argue either way that they were/were not following the intent of SLS, but it would at least be a more honest approach than the current fire-dismantle-delay activities.
And they could delay work on the actual Shuttle Heritage core until later in the program, when it would be needed.
PeterAlt, your ideas are spot-on and technically perfect, but politically untenable. Many of us have been advocating for people who have actually developed launch vehicles beyond the power point stage to be called on to do NASA's next BFR, but the Shuttle (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). won't let it progress. Similarly, it would be as bad if not worse for it to be a Shuttle-style Program mostly designed by NASA even if the contractor is ULA. It's not just successful development experience. When the government gets involved in setting requirements or designs past Level 1 or 2, cost control is impossible.
So, this would require another NASA Authorization Act by Congress?
It would require a substantial change
I agree that launch vehicles small enough to have synergy with the non-NASA launch sector would be better than SLS (albeit politically hard), but I don't like the idea of giving ULA a no-bid contract. Wouldn't it be better to let ULA, SpaceX, and whoever else is interested bid on a contract for a launch vehicle capable of 40-70 mt to LEO or alternatively 20-35 mt to earth escape?