The idea that Rumseld will come riding in on a white horse to kill the Shuttle dragon (er, griffin seems to be wishful thinking.

First, there’s no reason to assume Rumseld would take time out from the war on terror just to get involved in designing NASA’s new heavy lifter.

Second, even if Rumsfeld had nothing better to do with his time, there’s no reason to assume he would oppose Griffin. Given that Griffin was appointed by the President and has been proclaimed the greatest rocket scientist since Von Braun, it seems unlikely Rumsfeld would overrule him on a technical decision.

Just N, do you really think the President of the United States makes technical decisions on what launch vehicle to build?

At most, he will choose among options presented to him by his advisors. They will isolate him and present him only with the options they want him to hear, just as they did with VSE in the first place. Read Cowing’s book and see how many times the word “commercial” was mentioned.

Leaving the CEV permanently on orbit to be supplied with LOX from the Moon and crew and methane/LH2 from Earth gives the private sector many more market opportunities.

Heh! I posted that exact fly on the wall comment elsewhere.

Any, just-n-engineer, I agree with you that the question remains wide open. (With O’Keefe EELV was a slam dunk.)

But consider Seantors Nelson & Hutchinson’s insistence that orbiter NOT stand down until CEV flies with crew. Can we fly an EELV CEV by 2010 even with a reduced ISS schedule?

And what would extending orbiter’s life do to all our hopes and dreams? (Don’t yell at me, Senator Hutchinson is a Texas Republican.)

My intuition is that Griffin wants SDV for cargo and t/Space for crew (as much cargo as in a car trunk) but cannot put all his eggs in t/Space since flying CEV by 2010 is the key to assuring orbiter is gone come 2010. My intuition (again) is that Griffin believes he can actually fly crew on Thiokol plus J2 CEV by 2010 (and pay for it from inside the STS/ISS portion of his sand table budget) and thereby avoid a head-to-head confrontation with a bi-partisan alliance of Senators.

President Bush may claim its his decision (EELV vs SDV) but Florida electoral politics and the wishes of Senator Hutchinson are not irrelevant. I just don’t see the President giving Kay Bailey Hutchinson a stiffarm shove on this issue of not grounding the orbiter until after its replacement is flying.

So, who among us would prefer EELV if it meant orbiter remains flying until 2012 or 2014?

Anyway, what that report doesn’t mention is that the HLLV decision isn’t Griffin’s to make: it’s the President’s, and Griffin and Rumsfeld have to give him a joint recommendation. (Oh, to be a fly on the wall in that meeting…) Seeing the hole EELV is chewing in the DOD’s pocket, along with just about every other major milspace program, and Rummy’s sure to be fighting for ways to staunch the bleeding, like getting NASA to buy more EELVs. As the aforecited Mr. Cowing might say: ‘Stay Tuned’…

CXV carries both astronauts and passengers to LEO in a survivable, robust, and affordable way. Dock with in-space CEV that’s launched uncrewed on whatever, which flies to and from the lunar surface or lunar orbit or whatever.

It’s called Earth Orbit Rendezvous, and it’s an open architecture that allows new providers to deliver people, propellant, and smaller pieces of cargo to LEO via whatever means they come up with, while NASA does its CEV thang.

Today, capitalism can grab LEO. We’ll take the rest of CISlunar space tomorrow.

Dock the CXV to the CEV and go to the Moon. Return to LEO and re-enter the CXV and land the crew. Leave the CEV on-orbit for re-use.

NASA has not done well following its technical muse; I just though maybe we should try following some of the historial precedents to try for the smallest, lowest-cost step possible.

We won’t know for a decade or more who is right, but, on historical grounds more than technical ones, I’ll still bet I am.

— Donald