Now I would appreciate a link that explicitly shows DoD was not consulted because last I remember only the USAF was not consulted. And DoD is not equal to USAF.

As for national priorities they were spelled out explicitle by at least Lori Garver here http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/433361main_Goddard_keynote_final.pdf I see nothing about HLV or DoD concerns related to NASA save for “world peace” which is a given.

“irrational position against America having a more capable launch system than widely available world wide is coming from?”

More capable to launch what? To launch what DoD payload? Where does it say anywhere that DoD needs something that big and even so then sorry but DoD would have to pay for it. Furthermore they would not even be able to classify such a LV since wherever it launches from anyone with a modest satellite system would be able to catch it. So no I don’t believe your claim that DoD needs this thing. As to “irrational” position I believe it is yours. Read what I wrote about classified info. If you’d have access to such info and you mention it then you are committing a crime against the US. So in effect *you* would have a position against America. Sorry.

As to the potential missions you refer to you have to have a business case. Even if, even if there’d be only one LV in the whole world to launch them how would you justify its cost? You just cannot. That’s one of your problems.

“Perhaps, you should put your energies into explain to everyone here why America shouldn’t have a launch system more capable than what all other space fairing nations have? ”

Sorry but this is a totally false argument. YOU have to justify why we need this LV. I don’t want it and as a taxpayer you’re asking me to pay for it. So far the justification is tenuous at best and the DoD story is very very lousy.

“Then again I’m sure you are just going to produce another rant lacking the ability to form a supportable argument on behalf of your position.”

Believe what you want. We shall see soon right? And make sure you tell NASA how delirious they are not to take your project based on your claims. So far they have not. You’re mixing things. Again YOU have to prove to the government and NASA in particular that your project is worth anything.

Let me repeat: U.N.B.E.L.I.E.V.A.B.L.E.

I just don’t understand what is so confusing to you about this or where this irrational position against America having a more capable launch system than widely available world wide is coming from? Especially sense it’s already 80% paid for. The new science missions that can now be done should support a SDHLV even if there a zero commercial or military applications ‘real’ or ‘imaginary’.

Speaking on non-imaginary widely publicly known missions, When Charlie Bolden was asked about the mission to Europa (I can’t recall if it was this hearing or the one that followed on Wednesday) he didn’t really give the correct answer as to why it’s on the top of the list but keeps getting passed over for funding year after year. The answer is we lack the throw mass capability to pull it off. A capability the Jupiter-130 will enable for the first time. Ditto, for Mars sample return only its limitations are in the heat shield diameter (using scaled up Viking approaches to Mars EDL) that in turn limits how much mass we can land and therefore return to Earth. Speaking of Earth, how about resolving other Earths around other Suns in our Galaxy, yep your right volume, diameter and mass limitations again, how did you guess so quickly.

Look eventually using existing launch systems the new science missions are going to be minor variations/improvements of mission we have already flown, without, a serious upgrade in the launch system. Since the Jupiter will likely be joint effort between Lockheed/Martin and Boeing, you know just like ULA is, we don’t even have to upset any of the iron rice bowls, what a deal. Hey even the engineers that work for ULA at the Cape won’t even need to move when the are simply reassigned to support the Jupiter.

Perhaps, you should put your energies into explain to everyone here why America shouldn’t have a launch system more capable than what all other space fairing nations have? After all we spend more than all other nations combinded on our Space program. Doesn’t it then make sense that we should have slightly better launch system? Then again I’m sure you are just going to produce another rant lacking the ability to form a supportable argument on behalf of your position.

So what is it now? This is either illegal or just plain false. It does not matter what is said because in the end you may just kill your entire plan by divulging or making claims that a SD-HLV is needed based on classified information you have access to!

U.N.B.E.L.I.E.V.A.B.L.E.

Robert, I’m also a citizen of the United States of America and would never do something intentionally that would compromise the safety and security of my fellow citizen’s, which includes you I assume? If you are a US citizen you might want to get a little more familiar with Article 3 Section 3 of the US Constitution. While many US citizens, like me, don’t need the punishment of law in order to compel us to do the right thing on behalf or our nation, it sure sounds like you do.

…

Stephen.

I asked you in a respectful way a serious question on a claim that you made.

the answer you gave me is one reason I stopped taking the DIRECT people in any form seriously. It is one reason that the project is not making any political headway.

Robert G. Oler

The lamest attempt to start a false rumor I’ve seen in quite a while.

Robert: “since I doubt you have secret or other clearance…and are “in the know” what do you think that they are?”

Seriously? Do you think I would post them here or use any electronic means email, telephone etc. transmit them?..

why not? Without a security clearance you are free to post whatever musings you have heard or been told (even if you got it from someone who had a security clearance, they violate the oath not you)…and anything else is just speculation.

Jim Oberg pushes his theories on military and secret ops all the time…they are stuff he derives from “what he hears” and “what he reads” and no people in black helicopters fly over to his house and carry him away.

II dont get it.

Robert G. Oler

Seriously? Do you think I would post them here or use any electronic means email, telephone etc. transmit them?

Common Sense,

Maybe you will be able to read all about them in book written thirty years from now or whenever they become declassified. I’m not going to say or hint at anything beyond what Congress has shown interest in public concerning vague notions of other uses of a HLV.

Until then let your imagination run wild. If you don’t have a good imagination then just go on believing that everything that can be discovered has been discovered and its impossible that their can be anything new under the Sun that may just happen to require a HLV along the lines of the Jupiter.

Ironic in that Jupiter was believed by the Romans to be the god of Commerce, Knowledge, and Security whose son just so happens to Mars. What a fitting name for what I sincerely hope become key missions enabled by America’s next rocket. Carrying forward the name the Von Braun team used internally for the rocket that put America in space for the first time, that was later officially named Juno (i.e. the name confusion you see in the write-ups routinely concerning this period), is also a nice touch since they too were inspired by human missions to Mars just like Robert Goddard before them.

Ironically as well, Ares is the name of the Greek god of ‘unnecessary’ war, arrogance and bloodlust. Athena, his sister and patron god of Athens was the Greek goddess of ‘necessary’ war or war of last resort for self-defense.

Robert we have never said that, all we have claimed is that the loss of experience and industrial base would be ‘less’ under our plan than the Program of Record…

sorry the other post got long, not gang banging here…but just this comment…we obviously disagree on what promises are being made and not being made.

But workforce loss is a lot like being Pregnant. If you have a job then the workforce loss while tragic and large was not massive. If you had a job but lost it in the layoffs then even if the total numbers were small, it was pretty massive.

what the folks who are losing their job hear in “shuttle derived vehicle” is “I keep my job”.

Robert G. Oler

I saw this after responding to the DoD post…to make a few points in a little different order

“Back in 2005 the transition from STS to the Jupiter/Orion systems would have been fairly pain free”

that I agree with mostly. Indeed the presentation can be made that a “transition” from STS to a SDHLV Shuttle C (OK Jupiter) could have been made “Pain free” in terms of infrastructure IF it could have been afforded. What in “my” view made the Jupiter concept ” thoughtful” in the era until 2005 (or 2006) was that not only did it translate the “cargo” to uncrewed vehicles but eventually took the crewed component with it gradually sidelining the orbiter.

What I have never been convinced of is that the transition is as easy to do as is stated. I dont think that the Jupiter groups have accurately estimated a few things. The first is the cost to almost completely redesign the ET. I dont support Ares V but there is a reason that the Agency went from the current tank to a slightly larger one as they redesigned it from side mount to a bottom burner. Even if the current size were to be maintained and the only thing that was transitioned was the engine and “load path” …at one point it would be impossible to have “both” ET’s on the line at Michoud nor would the manufactoring process be “seamless”.

I have also never been convinced that the cost savings are there. Yes there is more mass that can actually be used as payload…but that has to be taken against a very old infrastructure and system…the same things that were going to drive Ares Cost up were going to be in play in the “Jupiter”.

But in my view two things made this discussion completly theoretical. The first is that the entire notion of an exploration program for NASA has little or no public support and even if the booster situation could get in hand the “other” parts were not. IE the cost of exploration were just going to get higher…

Second. The concept of “large massive structures” launched in one single toss has suffered a blow due to the success of ISS. The entire notion of HLV’s and exploration is “expend along the way”…and I dont think that is how we go back to the Moon. Plus I think that we have learned to build things in bites, test them in space…then fly them for long periods of time.

so your statement “The capabilities achieved by the DIRECT plan within the next five years are also completely absent in the current plan as well.” while accurate is in fact suggesting a capability that is not needed.

The DoD doesnt want it. They dont want anything to do with the cost of the shuttle…and if they go to “larger blocks” of vehicles it will be in bites that a Delta/Atlas/Falcon “Heavier” can handle…and if it gets larger then that…they will go to assembly in orbit…which ISS has proven.

“Trust me the advantages of a near term HLV are far more important to national security than you obviously know. ”

since I doubt you have secret or other clearance…and are “in the know” what do you think that they are?

Robert G. Oler