Not that I agree that it would be more expensive, but when has something being more expensive ever stopped NASA from doing it?

Thank you for the comments. They’re playing the money game, obviously, and the devil is in the details…

W.r.t the X-37B, a lot of press attention. The vehicle itself is nothing new, a refinement of the shuttle airframe. as you correctly assume, it is the series of tests done in space that are critical, probably.

Interestingly, the simultanous launch of Falcon has received less attention, at least to my browsing. The critical technology there is the feasibility of hypersonic airbreathing propulsion, where the physics of fluids are extremely complex, surfaces must be actively cooled, etc.

Re: DIRECT and EELV, although I am not an engineer, I find credible the arguments made by others that a Delta IVH based lunar campaign would be more expensive than a comparable campaign done with the proposed Jupiter launch vehicle.

Therefore, it will not happen using EELV and thus if we scrap shuttle derived America’s space future (at least BEO) will be entrusted (almost entirely) to SpaceX and U.S. users of Russian technology.

As for doing the Moon with EELV class (or Proton class) remember that I have written a novel about lunar return using Proton (and Long March) as the heaviest lifter, blended with EML rendezvous.

And in a commercial setting, EELV cannot possibly compete with Proton (and later Long March) in the arena of price.

In my view they are going to win it.

I am more persuaded of this after April 15th than I was before. Obama’s spinal fortitude surprised me (and I would be pleased to see this extended to other issues).

However, Obama’s personal spinal fortitude will be necessary to carry this through to completion and therefore NewSpacers who work against him in 2012 are working against their own interests.

A delightful irony.

The issue though is we need to increase the payload volume as we increase lift capacity….

aside from the numerous flawed assumptions about the cost to develop “Direct” the above is a statement with out any justification.

There is no real data to suggest that the US needs a heavy lifter above that of EELV evolution, nor that it needs a “wider” one or one with increased volume…There is no real concept of what a lunar base would look like (other then what NASA has for its now failed Orion/Altair thing) nor what uses a lifter that can toss more then an Evolved (grin) EELV can.

That is the problem…there is no mission for Jupiter. The apostles of it have tried to morph it into something that can resupply the station but even that is not a good fit economically.

What you have done is come up with a concept that is nothing more then the XC-99. An airplane that was to expensive to operate and generated a cargo capability that no one needed.

that is why DIRECT will always remain little more then a photoshop

Robert G. Oler

The specification was for basically a modern day Saturn V. You are correct that we could get a more modest Kero/LOX HLV via upgrades to the Atlas for less. The issue though is we need to increase the payload volume as we increase lift capacity. So we need a core diameter increase to effectively utilize any significant increase in lift capacity over Atlas. It’s a bit of slippery slope in which NASA basically end up at a modern day Saturn V. So it depends. The cost breakout was $17 billion for the Core/Main Engines, $6 Billion for the Upperstage/Engine, $4.5 Billion launch transport/launch facilities.

This is why the Jupiter-130 makes so much sense, for about $8 Billion we get a good HLV foundation that may be good enough for the next three decades if Jeff is right. If not we can grow it latter on an as needed basis decades from now upto about 150mT. We don’t need to over commit (ie Modern day Saturn V) or run the risk of under committing either (upgraded EELV).

Keep in mind DIRECT was our best guess at where the center of gravity was based on a combination of budget, technical, and political forces. Change those forces and you arrive at different HLV futures like Ares-V or no HLV at all. I would also suggest that if we can’t find the where with all to add $8 Billion to an existing $40 Billion dollar SDHLV industrial base we are not going to have $30 Billion five years from now to build from scratch what would effectively be America’s third HLV system. So I see those advocating beginning the construction of any 100mT class HLV five years from now as attempting to sell us true HLV supporters, like Norm Augustine, a Trojan horse.

So I think it’s safe to say that if there is a 100mT class capable HLV in our future it will be a SDHLV.

I should elaborate on this a little as well. I’m not a lawyer, but I used to be advised by them in such matters. You can iterate on draft statements of work, but not RFPs. It’s a subtle, but important distinction.