It’s a double dose of commentary from two members of Congress in today’s Washington Post and The Hill. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) coauthored a letter to the editor in today’s Post in response to an earlier editorial by the paper that criticized human spaceflight in general, not just the administration’s revised plans for human space exploration. “We engage in manned exploration of space because it enhances quality of life on Earth through space-based research,” Hutchison and Kosmas argue, citing both spinoffs and the potential for future research on the ISS. The latter, they claim, is jeopardized by plans to retire the shuttle and also cancel Constellation. “A healthy and viable space station is critical to the emergence of the commercial space industry that the president’s proposal relies on,” they write. “If the space station is lost, the primary reason to send humans into space in the next decade will be lost.” They stop short, though, of explicitly calling for an extension of the shuttle or restoration of Constellation.
The two are also coauthors of an op-ed in The Hill about bipartisan concerns in Congress about the future of human spaceflight. In this longer piece, they offer more details about what they want to see: stretching out the remaining shuttle flights into 2011 or even 2012 while studying the future resupply needs of the station (a provision of the legislation they introduced in the House and Senate in March). They also call for a reconsideration of Constellation, in some undefined but revised form. “Simply put, combining a limited future shuttle capability with an evolutionary heavy lift vehicle or a rigorously reformed Constellation program would shrink the gap in our human space flight capabilities from both ends while reducing the risk to the space station,” they write. They also leave open “increased investment in commercial space activities” but only as “a redundant capability” to a government system. “We are confident,” they conclude, “we can find a bipartisan common ground on alternatives that represent a comprehensive space policy if the president and our colleagues will work with us.”
The senators’ op-ed in The Hill seems like a good foundation to discuss moving forward with NASA human space flight. While I’m not a big supporter of extending shuttle flights, it is still a viable option at his time. They also suggest modifying the Constellation program to better fit budget and schedule constraints. That, to me, seems a better way forward than the mess that the current FY’11 proposal is creating.
Despite the soaring rhetoric of April 15th, I think that it’s finally becoming clear that the Obama plan is really the way this administration plans to kill NASA human space flight.
A good foundation to discuss moving forward is the 2011 budget. Not constellation, not SRB’s, not extending the shuttle, not make work for nasa employees. If we want to ACTUALLY move forward lets discuss space based, reusable, gas n’ go vehicles for exploration. Lets discuss NASA utilizing commerical services to the MAXIMUM extent possible as has already been codified into law. Lets discuss NASA getting the biggest bang for the buck.
Stretching the Shuttle schedule would increase cost per flight to two or three billion dollars each, and impact flight safety by taking the edge off the processing team. I’ll bet they didn’t even consider that.
You’re focusing on the wrong piece Rand.
The effort should be tword modifying the Constellation program to bring capabilities on-line faster while restructuring costs.
“The effort should be tword modifying the Constellation program”
That is exactly what is happening. We are going to dump the 250 million dollars per seat costs of the Ares I for LEO access and go with a 20 million a seat cost by commercial services. We are going to develop a commercial heavy lift that has more across the board use for DOD, NASA, Commercial. Something like 50 tons to LEO.
I think Boeing’s shuttle derived heavy lift concepts (DIRECT) are exactly what the two legislators are talking about. A pdf of the new Boeing concepts can be found at the following URL:
http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=6%3A7I%276D%26X%5BR%5B%2ES%40GOP4S%5EQ%3AO%225J%40%22%5FP%20%20&urla=%25%2ARD%26%220%20%20&urlb=%21%2A%20%20%20&urlc=%21%2A0%20%20&urld=%28%2A%22H%25%22%40%2AEUQX%20&urle=%27%282D%27%23P%3EDW%40%20%20
The effort should be tword modifying the Constellation program to bring capabilities on-line faster while restructuring costs.
What Vladislaw said.
No Vlad and Rand….
What Marcel said.
Marcel F. Williams:
Thanks for the pdf link. It is full of good ideas. The 8.4m inline ET crew launch vehicle without SRB is new to me. Development of any of these options would calm the critics.
For those still looking for a little more meat on the bones of what they are proposing,
Here is a link to the budget details that implements the compromise plan called out in this letter, constrained to the President’s top line with all changes confined to the HSF portion of the proposed budget.
http://www.directlauncher.com/documents/NASA-Compromise-Budget-Detailed.xls
The fundamental policy achievements of which are closely aligned to the letter and described in greater detail in this Space Review article.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1571/1
And now we have Boeing who just last week officially confirming (is that recent enough for you Robert?) that DIRECT doesn’t defy the laws of physics anymore………..so we got that going for us………..which is nice.
Augustine option 4B (STS Extension + SDHLV) is looking better and better.
Of course it would be hard to use the material available from the Commission hearings to advocate any other approach.
http://www.vimeo.com/7209149
I’m still waiting for someone to produce a counter video using only the videos from the hearings to support the other two fundamental options (Ares or evolved Kero/LOX) also offered by the Commission as viable (Technical and Budgetary) options to the policy makers (ie the President and Congress).
For those who still believe more perfect plans are possible, remember that Politics is the art of possible and right now 90% of the money flowing within the Space Industry at present is generated by political means and targeted to achieve military and civilian political objectives.
I would also suggest that you read Daniel Handlin’s article in this weeks Space Review “Looking for the Silver Bulletâ€
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1619/1
He clear shows how those like Rand have unfortunately equated/confused a sincere desire to increase the commercial utilization of space (something I also desire) with yet another attempt by government to improve (via not so ‘new’ contracting methods) the price, schedule, capability and quality of products and services it buys from private companies.
And now we have Boeing who just last week officially confirming (is that recent enough for you Robert?) that DIRECT doesn’t defy the laws of physics anymore
Has anyone ever made such a claim?
He clear shows how those like Rand have unfortunately equated/confused a sincere desire to increase the commercial utilization of space (something I also desire) with yet another attempt by government to improve (via not so ‘new’ contracting methods) the price, schedule, capability and quality of products and services it buys from private companies.
Is there something wrong with the latter? I’ve never claimed it is anything other than that.
The trouble with using the external tank does not solve a fundamental problem NASA is experiencing, namely … MONEY.
The maximum amount of crew launches to serve the ISS is about 1 or 2 per year. I believe the last costs I have seen on the ET is close to 300 million a tank on a 6/year run. Add in the engines, avionics, capsule etc and you are still pushing 500 million a launch to LEO or 125 million per seat. This also still does not allow commercial crew launch capability and commercial development of space.
By utilizing commercial launch services on a dual use launch vehicle (crew, cargo, satellites) you gain increased flight rates, helping to push costs down even further and it fosters more overall commercial space economic development.
Vladislaw, you don’t understand. Cost does matter to them. The more it costs the better. That’s why they want to legislate the winner rather than take some time and come up with a sustainable answer. And no matter what they say, they still think commercial space is their enemy, rather than their salvation.
Stephen Metschan wrote @ May 5th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
And now we have Boeing who just last week officially confirming (is that recent enough for you Robert?) that DIRECT doesn’t defy the laws of physics ..
and now you have left making cost figures up to making things up that other people have said. Assuming I am the “Robert” you are referring to, I challenge you to find a post that I have written that says DIRECT or any SDV defies the laws of “physics”.
you wont.
what I have said and will continue to say is that the cost estimates that you routinely state for DIRECT are fantasy…and that the cost to transition from a Orbiter derived stack to one that is something else (cargo or crew lift) is high and then we are stuck with a unique vehicle that has no commercial use, uses old technology and has high launch cost.
The Boeing submission while entertaining is all about missions that do not exist. Oh they play around with a fuel depot, but in reality that is a program that can be done with EELV type activity (or at least explored in that manner).
Nice try Stephen…but DIRECT and all shuttle derived vehicles are experiencing a “death panel” moment a real one
Robert G. Oler
MrEarl wrote @ May 5th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
You’re focusing on the wrong piece Rand.
The effort should be tword modifying the Constellation program to bring capabilities on-line faster while restructuring costs…
Constellation cannot be cheaper or have lower recurring cost…thats a fantasy that has been tried since the first shuttle flew
Robert G. Oler
Stephen Metschan “And now we have Boeing who just last week officially confirming (is that recent enough for you Robert?) that DIRECT doesn’t defy the laws of physics anymoreâ€
Rand: “Has anyone ever made such a claim?â€
NASA House Hearing April 3, 2008
http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2135
Download the pdf version of the GPO transcript on the left side of the web page.
Dr. GILBRECH: “The other one you mentioned, the direct launcher, there was a similar architecture like that that was in that exploration systems architecture study. The claims for the direct launcher, we have actually had our Ares projects look at that and we can’t justify based on laws of physics the performance that are being claimed by that approach.†(Transcript page 81, pdf page 85)
Starting on (transcript page 98, pdf page 102) Q7 is blizzard of illogic that just so happens to be completely and totally contradicted in ESAS Appendix 6a. To this day NASA has not released the ESAS Appendix keeping it away from the general public under the SBU classification.
I showed one of the most relevant pages of the ESAS Appendix 6a during my presentation before the Augustine commission that showed that a 2 launch SDHLV approach would actually exceed the performance objective of the ugly step sisters (ie Ares-V , Ares-1). Combined with the public version of ESAS that showed that the 2 launch SDHLV was less expensive to develop and fly, it was game point match.
Unfortunately, everything in DC is 90% based on who you are and about 10% is based on the truth. Long story short Congress had almost no choice but to accept NASA official word on the subject absent any other information.
We made attempts to get ESAS 6a released to Congress after this miscarriage of reality but no luck until it was leaked about a year later in the summer of 2008. At that point we were well into the Presidential political cycle followed by the Augustine Commission.
Fortunately the Augustine Commission (with the help of the Aerospace Corporation) finally laid to rest the defying physics part as a SDHLV approach was deemed to be viable enough to be among 2 of the 5 options submitted to the policy makers. But even now people like Robert still run around claiming we defy the laws of physics on this very forum.
I’m sure he doesn’t even believe Boeing either.
Stephen Metschan wrote @ May 5th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
He clear shows how those like Rand have unfortunately equated/confused a sincere desire to increase the commercial utilization of space (something I also desire) with yet another attempt by government to improve (via not so ‘new’ contracting methods) the price, schedule, capability and quality of products and services it buys from private companies…
Stephen. With all due respect both your comments and the article you reference in Space Review point out almost nothing.
I’ve refrained on commenting on the Space Review piece at the site because I have been still trying to sort out if I think its worthwhile…but this sentence from the article seems to sum its problem up (I’ll ignore the second part which is pretty much just anti Obama rhetoric)
“To express this another way, it is unclear how Obama’s policy, as outlined, will differ from the way in which NASA currently procures its spacecraft unless NASA is a) willing to compromise on safety and/or other requirements, which is unlikely for the reasons outlined above; or b) adopts a “hands-offâ€, TSPR-like approach to the development of the vehicle, saving itself dollars and responsibility but potentially putting at risk the schedule, budget, and performance of the final product.”
one can argue if an agency that has through its own incompetence killed 14 astronauts and lost two vehicles is capable of compromising safety…but there is another way.
Go buy a ticket on any Part 121 carrier and you will understand how this works.
Robert G. Oler
Stephen Metschan wrote @ May 5th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
But even now people like Robert still run around claiming we defy the laws of physics on this very forum…
unless you post where I have said that, then you Sir are lying. It is that simple. I never said what you are claiming.
but lying/exaggerating is what you folks do best
Robert G. Oler
I agree with Vladislaw and Robert G. Oler about costs and payload concerns for any HLLV, and I think we’re all on the same page now about launching crew and cargo on separate launchers.
For crew, can anyone advocating Direct or Constellation provide per seat costs that beat the $55M/seat for the Soyuz, or projected to beat the $20M/seat that SpaceX says they can do? For SpaceX, that means they charge $100M for launching five people to LEO, and they think they can make a profit at that (they charge $51.5M just for the launcher). Does anyone think that Ares I or Direct can match or beat that?
For cargo, no matter what anyone wants to do in space, it will have to be modular. Right now we have lots of modular space components that are designed and tested, and we’re using them right now (ISS). We can build more, and the price will be less that what it cost for the ISS. To do even more in space, Lockheed Martin has proposed the ACES 41 family of products – all based on current technology, and needing small amounts of near-term enhancements. All of this fits on our current family of launchers, and we could start launching them within 5 years.
In regards to space, talk is not cheap – overhead kills a budget. The faster we build and launch systems into space, the easier it will be to retain funding (and retain personnel). We have the technology now to start doing stuff in space, and as we max out it’s potential, we’ll know better what a bigger launcher needs to be.
Rand: “Is there something wrong with the latter? I’ve never claimed it is anything other than that.â€
Rand, please your articles on the current approach to ‘commercialization’ (not to be confused with true commercialization) read like the current plan is the second coming. I think Daniel does and excellent job a dispelling that view in this weeks collection of Space Review articles.
The true commercialization of launch services will ultimately follow the commercial utilization of Space which should occur if a significant reduction of launch costs is achieved.
Speaking of which I think CSIS is on to something, page 39.
http://csis.org/node/24909
“Allow commercial launch vendors to charge commercial satellite customers the marginal cost of launch. This practice is not excluded as a matter of policy or regulation today. However, the current structure of the contract between the government and ULA intertwines fixed and marginal costs in a way that that does not permit marginal launch costs to be identified clearly. Renegotiation of the ULA contract would be necessary to allow only these marginal costs to be charged for commercial satellite launches. A further issue here is the sound stewardship of government funds, since the government would voluntarily pay a higher price for launch than commercial launch customer. While the government wants to secure itself the best cost, allowing launch vendors to charge only the marginal costs to commercial launch consumers could increase the number of launches by U.S. vendors, and in turn enhance production efficiency and lower cost for U.S. government launches.†Page 39
Sounds very familiar to me. And no this isn’t a subsidy, the commercial users pay for the marginal cost increase of each additional launch so their use of a strategic national asset is cost neutral to the government. The difference is that commercial users will no longer be required to pay a portion of the government’s strategic fixed cost. A cost the government will pay with or without commercial users the lack of which is a very frequent occurrence these days.
Once we get to a more 50/50 relationship between government and commercial users we can revisit this arrangement but until then every new private dollar flowing into the Space Industry increase the tax base, improves trade balance and provides a stronger foundation for this national strategic asset.
Okay Robert I’ll bite, perhaps you could expand upon why “no one” (BTW on a planet of over six billion people that is pretty strong statement all by itself) “takes DIRECT seriously anymore?”
It sure sounds to me like at least a few members of Congress would be in favor of something along the lines of Augustine option 4B.
Stephen Metschan wrote @ May 5th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Okay Robert I’ll bite, ..
I wont bite until you state clearly that you were misstating/exaggerating/or lying take your pick about any comments I made on the “Physics” of DIRECT.
there is no point debating with reason someone who is not advocating a position based on either reason or facts.
Robert G. Oler
“It sure sounds to me like at least a few members of Congress would be in favor of something along the lines of Augustine option 4B.”
And of these few members of Congress who would be in favor of using the shuttle derived system, how many of them are not in florida, texas, alabama or utah?
Stephen Metschan wrote @ May 5th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Rand, please your articles on the current approach to ‘commercialization’ (not to be confused with true commercialization) …
Since Rand wrote them I am quite certain he read them.
“true commercialization”…lol this is the last refugee of someone (you) who is advocating a policy (DIRECT) which is nothing but pure socialism in terms of a product.
the difficulty in human spaceflight right now is that it is trying to transition from a effort which is total socialism to something that isnt and hopefully eventually is something like the airlines.
Problem is that one cannot get there in one giant leap…go from a socialistic process with no markets whatsoever to developing one (a Market) and then allow market forces to take over.
so people like you (and Whittington and all the others) retreat behind “true commercialism”
seesh
Robert G. Oler
Rand, please your articles on the current approach to ‘commercialization’ (not to be confused with true commercialization) read like the current plan is the second coming.
That’s only because all the alternatives such so much more. I don’t think it’s a great plan, it’s just the best one politically available.
I responded to criticism like this on Monday:
But to say that it’s better than the other plans is to damn it with faint praise.
Costal Ron, from our estimates (directly sourced to almost 30 years of actual STS cost data, fixed plus marginal) the retirement of the Shuttle orbiter should lower the cost of Jupiter-130 by about 20% over STS while increasing the mass delivered to orbit by three fold. At two launches per year that would put a Jupiter-130 at about $1.8 billion per year.
Assuming an IOC of about 2015 that gives us about 8-10 flights between 2015 and 2020, ie Phase 1 of the SDHLV plan, Phase 2 is 2xSDHLV with an EDS 2020-2025, Phase 3 (2025-2030) includes the Propellant Depot enabling over a 100mT missions to be sent to Mars without using NTR or other advanced propulsion, just using a plain old conventional LOX/LH2 EDS and a modest Jupiter-130 75mT 10m HLV (ie not the Ares-V). All spacecraft are launched fully integrated but dry and tanked up in orbit. Crew can follow in whatever vehicle, perhaps the SpaceX Dragon to rendezvous with the mission spacecraft.
Concerning cost, one flight of the Jupiter-130 to the ISS can deliver the payload of almost 2 COTS-CRS contracts, volume and/or mass. One COTS-CRS contract currently costs over $3Billion dollars. So do you understand that for about $1 Billion dollars per launch the Jupiter-130 (sounds expensive at first glance) we can deliver the same amount of payload to the ISS that would cost $6 Billion dollars and take 40 launches under the COTS-CRS contract?
So basically one launch per year to the ISS would be more than sufficient for full utilization of the ISS so that leaves about 4-5 flights for Beyond LEO missions (manned and unmanned) using an upper stage of the Delta as an EDS in Phase 1. Apollo-8, Mars Sample Return, Super Large Telescopes, Sample return from the Oceans of Europa come to mind. Plus the Military may have few ideas as well.
Plus remember we still get to steady state of about $3 Billion per year in the Advanced Tech and Precursor Missions line item by 2015. One would hope that this line item would start to deliver some interesting missions as we approach 2020 and beyond. Plus the plan under a flexible path approach would be to have our international partners develop the deep space hab to replace the ISS in the 2020 time frame plus enable NEO missions using the American Orion, Jupiter, and EDS elements.
So basically one launch per year to the ISS
Have you talked to the ISS program office about this plan? You would probably choke the system. Do they have storage for a year’s worth of resupply? And how well would the stuff keep? There’s a reason that ISS wants smaller, more frequent “just-in-time” deliveries (preferably synchronized with crew changeout).
I wrote:
That’s only because all the alternatives such so much more
The “h” in “such” was supposed to be a “k.”
Stephen Metschan wrote @ May 5th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
while you are thinking on how to apologize for misstating/lying/exaggerating my position on the physics of DIRECT …
lets play with this
“At two launches per year that would put a Jupiter-130 at about $1.8 billion per year.”
“…. So do you understand that for about $1 Billion dollars per launch the Jupiter-130 (sounds expensive at first glance) we can deliver the same amount of payload to the ISS that would cost $6 Billion dollars and take 40 launches under the COTS-CRS contract?..
first off “1” flight is nonesense. There is no requirement for that from the space station office or users
but I realize that most of you DIRECT people are use to changing cost like most people change underwear but which is it 1 billion or 1.8 billion?
Robert G. Oler
I’ve often felt that DIRECT is less concerned with operations and actual missions than with pretty launches, crafty re-stacking schemes, and tons-to-LEO numbers.
In fact, such navel-gazing discussions from DIRECT boosters over at NASASpaceFlight.com have made those forums practically unreadable.
.
Stephen Metschan wrote @ May 5th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Plus the Military may have few ideas as well…
really tell us what those are. YOU DO NOT hold a security clearance so you can legally share with us what you think!
you wont will you?
Robert G. Oler
Alex wrote @ May 5th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
In fact, such navel-gazing discussions from DIRECT boosters over at NASASpaceFlight.com have made those forums practically unreadable…
yeah my favorite answer from one person over there was when I asked him what was the difference in the cost between Ares V conversion of the ET and the DIRECT people”s ideas on it (for in line) and the answer was (and this is a quote) “The Ares effort is a brand new tank, ours is simply a conversion of an existing one”.
and they really believe that
Robert G. Oler
@ Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 5th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
” YOU DO NOT hold a security clearance so you can legally share with us what you think!”
With or without a security clearance sharing any thing, ANY, that is classified is against the law. So and I have argued that with him in the past this all balloney sorry. Now if he has access to classified information and he is alluding to it on the Internet that is most likely against the law as well. By definition, if it is classified, well it is classified. Need to know and the rest…
Oh well…
common sense wrote @ May 5th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
I agree Robert G. Oler
[…] Space Politics » Doubleteamed commentary from Congress […]
[…] Space Politics » Doubleteamed commentary from Congress […]
Robert, please do learn to use tags to distinguish what you are quoting..
and they really believe that
for example is really easy on the eyes and it’s simple: <i>foo</i>
Oler,
I’ve asked for those studies you refer to about the cost structure for an inline HLV based on present shuttle hardware and have yet to have anyone tell me where to find them.
The majority of the cost associated to the shuttle is the man power for the care and maintenance of the orbiter.
It’s time we evolve the systems that we have instead of always looking for the silver bullet, the holy grail, Apollo on steroids or game changing technologies that are either too expensive, not close to maturity or just plain fantasy.
test /i>
this is a test Robert
Trent Waddington wrote @ May 5th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
I dont normally use them but as you might have seen will experiment and use them! Thanks
Robert G. Oler
The kind of la-de-da, let’s have fun imagining details of one or another paper-based mod of the old and inherently costly components will have zero effect on what is decided in DC.
The zombified, pork-directed, broad-brush destructive products of such as Hutchison and Kosmos’s staffers will carry the day unless people get their heads out of the musings such as above and challenge these people in the media that count in Washington.
Since I fear that there are too few of us doing the latter, let’s hope that the result of the budget process is merely something no more _restrictive_ on the preexisting pace of private development.
I know you don’t like “Avatar” Rand, but what Moat said to Jake Sully near the start is true in spades both on the Hill and for some of the writers here, “It is hard to fill a cup that is already full.”
Yup, and the consequences follow…
“So basically one launch per year to the ISS would be more than sufficient for full utilization of the ISS”
So basically the astronauts, on the ISS, would get fresh fruit and vegies once per year, they would love that. Experiments would get sent to the ISS once per year, scientists would love that.
Did the shuttle ever send up 25 tons of food, water, oxy and fuel for reboost? Where would the ISS store 80 – 100 tons of cargo for a full years use?
@ Vladislaw
Space Shuttle external tanks only cost between $40 to $80 million.
MrEarl: “While I’m not a big supporter of extending shuttle flights, it is still a viable option at his time.”
It may be viable, but it’s extremely expensive. As others have noted, it’s also dangerous.
MrEarl: “They also suggest modifying the Constellation program to better fit budget and schedule constraints.”
Good luck with that. The Constellation program managers have been pulling their collective hairs out trying to fit the budget and schedule for years. They’ve lost a lot of capabilities, but the budget and schedule are completely out of control in spite of their efforts.
Stephen Metschan: “Here is a link to the budget details that implements the compromise plan called out in this letter.”
The last time I checked that budget spreadsheet it cut a lot of the 2011 plan, including almost all of the commercial crew budget, some general space technology funding (i.e. not specific to HSF), robotic precursors, and exploration technology demonstrations. It struck me as cutting these things too far to consider it a compromise. It’s basically throwing out the 2011 plan.
I suspect it can be improved by getting rid of crewed DIRECT Orion launch, and sticking with the current Orion super-lite CRV plan. The DIRECT rocket would then not have to be human-rated. All of this should save a considerable amount of money through 2015, and might, if the Jupiter development figures in the spreadsheet are accurate, allow a real compromise budget to be built that includes an actual commercial crew competition and more funding for the other items like robotic precursors and exploration technology demonstrations (although I suspect that the cuts to those areas would still be severe). The DIRECT rockets could be used for non-crew jobs like launching robotic precursors, technology demos, science missions, and the like.
It will be really hard for DIRECT to compete with the development and operations costs of something like a Phase I EELV HLV that shares infrastructure costs with rockets that are going to be used anyway. I wouldn’t burden the DIRECT budget concept with expensive Orion development and rocket human rating efforts, which will only make DIRECT even more expensive, put DIRECT in competition with commercial crew (Bolden says he will not allow government competition with commercial crew), and only gain political support from the Orion side which should already be satisfied with Orion super-lite CRV, the opportunity to compete for commercial crew, and the chance to feed CRV technology into beyond-LEO spacecraft.
MrEarl wrote @ May 5th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Oler,
I’ve asked for those studies you refer to about the cost structure for an inline HLV based on present shuttle hardware and have yet to have anyone tell me where to find them.
The majority of the cost associated to the shuttle is the man power for the care and maintenance of the orbiter….
end of quote
“The majority” might be correct…but two points are in order.
First the cost to reprocess/salvage the SRB’s are substantial…last I heard from John Shannon’s public statements (and sorry I dont have the quote) is that at the current flight rate it is a wash as to recovering them or just building them new
Second the cost to process etc any payload on any shuttle derivative are likely to be as high as the shuttle orbiter.
Robert G. Oler
I dont normally use them but as you might have seen will experiment and use them! Thanks
I’ve been asking you to do this for months. If you are incapable of figuring out basic HTML, could you at least learn to use quote marks intelligently, instead of randomly?
I don’t suppose it’s worth the effort of pointing out the problem with any sort of heavy lift again.
Heavy lift costs too much.
Saturn V was cancelled because it cost too much.
How many heavly lift programs have been proposed and cancelled since then? 4? 5?
All of them cost too much and got cancelled.
As Geff Gleason said at the Augustine panel “If this program (constellation) were delivered to us tomorrow the first thing we’d have to do is cancel it.”
So it was cancelled.
Why?
Because Constellation cost too much.
And with all this hankering for heavy lift and doing false start after false start where are we 40 years after Apollo?
Nowhere.
So the HLV fans ignore everything you’ve said and start talking about Direct, or Side mount or this or that HLV, totally ignoring the central point that has been demonstrated by multiple HLV’s over many years,
HLVs cost too much.
Period.
And it’s the persuit of heavy lift that has kept us trapped in LEO.
Don’t get me wrong we will need HLV one day, but the longer we can put it off the better.
We have the EELV’s. With them, and a little ingenuity we can visit, mine settle both the Moon and Mars. see
http://www.ulalaunch.com/index_published.html
and read the paper on the “Affordable Exploration Architecture 2009″
All I ask is that please, please, please don’t
“Yes but if we had heavy lift…” me.
The point of the above rant is that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) and just playing to this choir. “Love us”, they’re saying. “We’ll feed your fantasy.”
But will it get us anywhere, like the Moon or Mars, or doesn’t it really matter to them so long as the jobs are safe?
Fred, I believe you are right in your assessment of Kosmas and Hutchison. Their interest is votes and jobs help get votes. As to whether or not it will get us anywhere; the answer is no. It may get both of them re-elected and that is their only concern.
I disagree somewhat about Heavy Lift. It is not wrong, right now we have other options as you point out. However, there will come a time when we do need to build larger launch vehicles.. They will be expensive but if done correctly they could significantly reduce the cost per kilo to orbit. Flight rate and design for single use are probably the most important pieces of this puzzle but in order for any of this to be accomplished we need to have a much more elastic market for space services. I don’t see that happening any time soon.
I do not see the Space-X vehicles helping that process much in the long run. Yes, they are commercial but their pricing is going to reflect the costs of doing business on a US Range that really does not like or want commercial stuff. I really don’t know where they can go to reduce prices much more. Their engineering and manufacturing seems to be efficient and competent, the costs seem to come from interfacing with bureaucracy.
It would seem that the only constant in this argument about the future of NASA and Space Exploration – human or otherwise – is the dedicated resistance to change!
Andy, Oh, my! We’ve seen for some time that Old NASA hates and fears true capitalist entrepreneurs. Now you say that Air Force run Cape Canaveral is “a US Range that really does not like or want commercial stuff.” Where are the pro-capitalist, anti-government Republicans when we really need them? Oh, yeah …
@ red wrote @ May 5th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
RE: DIRECT Rocket and human rating
Regardless of the “human rating requirements” having 2 giant solid boosters strapped to your rocket will always, ALWAYS, make it inherently UNSAFE. There is no possible control of those SRBs without major redesign. A pad abort would spell catastrophe. Why in heck would we need any analysis here? It is obvious that an exploding SRB on the pad will detonate the central tank and at the very least damage the other SRB sending sharpnel at very high velocity all around. How many Gs would we need to escape anything like this? On ascent how would we control the SRBs after LAV bailout? How do we prevent recontact with SRBs going full thrust? It’s not like we’d have 10 or 20 seconds to do anything. The lead time on Apollo was about 2 seconds to bail. How long would we have if an SRB fails? Do we need extra vehicle life monitoring systems? Shuttle does nto need that they can not bail anyway.
So please all think a little harder about crew rating a SD HLV especially if a LAS is a requirement!