My main problem with your position is that you think you can solve the volume problem by offloading mass, that is utter nonsense based on the definition of density (i.e. mass/volume).

Your major problem is that you’re seeing things. I never said you could solve the volume “problem” by off-loading propellant, I said you could solve the *mass* problem by off-loading propellant. Simple really, but you apparently prefer to conclude I’m a moron instead of concluding I meant mass not volume.

At times you also suggest that we don’t have volume problem at all, which is also utter nonsense.

What part of the serious cost overruns and schedule delays mostly due to packing issues with JWST and MSL don’t you understand?

I’ve seen experts deny this has anything to do with the launch vehicle.

So all the fundamentals point to a lower life cycle cost with a modest HLV.

EELV Phase 1 and maybe even Atlas Phase 2 would be a modest HLV. And note that so far no one has ever bought an Atlas V Heavy launch.

My main problem with your position is that you think you can solve the volume problem by offloading mass, that is utter nonsense based on the definition of density (i.e. mass/volume). At times you also suggest that we don’t have volume problem at all, which is also utter nonsense. What part of the serious cost overruns and schedule delays mostly due to packing issues with JWST and MSL don’t you understand?

There are a number of new ground breaking missions I am personally aware of in both civilian and military applications that we just can’t do constrained to 5m cans, hence they don’t even get out of the concept stage. Sure even with the Jupiter-130, +80% of missions won’t need the diameter, volume or mass but nearly 100% of the truly ground breaking missions will. Without the Jupiter-130 we will just get more of the same or marginally better missions at a significantly higher life cycle cost.

Assuming 2 Jupiter-130 launches per year at $1.5 Billion results in cost per kg to orbit of about $10K/kg. It gets much lower if you assume more launches but I don’t think we will have the money to fly more than about 75-150mT of dry spacecraft a year anyway. Assuming that smaller launchers produce a cost of about $5K/kg at a launch rate much higher than today means that we are paying a premium of about $750 million per year to have an HLV. Given how much of the overall launch industrial base is a shared between ULA and SDHLV the premium is about half of that or about $400 million per year. A reduction in the cost of spacecraft/mission of just 10% would more than offset this difference. Right now with JWST and MSL we are looking at cost overruns that are many multiples of launch cost. So all the fundamentals point to a lower life cycle cost with a modest HLV.

You are completely misrepresenting my position and your gratuitous insults say more about your character than they do about me. I said exploration could be done with existing launchers and you stated that would compromise the spacecraft. This is total nonsense. If you are thinking of the old Altair design, then there are a whole host of solutions that are both technically superior and will fit inside a standard EELV fairing, dual thrust axis landers and crasher stages being prominent among them.

As for satellites, which you brought up, not me, there is currently no demand for the wider payload fairings that are possible on EELVs. That should tell you something.

There is no need for an HLV, and SDLV would be a completely uneconomical HLV if one was needed.

> If you were a contractor at NASA, then you would know that
> all the processing for space related stuff at NASA is done by
> United Space Alliance (USA), not United Launch Alliance (ULA).

Hey it was McDonnell Douglas when I was in MOD at JSC. I’ve been a contractor at other places for some time.

The point was – its not being done by NASA. So saying say Shuttle is done by NASA and Commercial Crew (say EELV based) would be commercial – when it would just be a different contract structure to the same master companies, is a bit misleading.

> The other number that bugged me is when I stated “NASA
> has 17,900 employees”, and you said “and up to90% of
> the staffs at centers are contractors”. [are] you’re implying
> that the U.S. Government only has 1,790 NASA employees
> on the payroll across 20 centers, ==

Actually I was assuming you were saying that? A quick Wikipedia check
KSC alone has over 13,500
JSC 3,200civil servant 15,000 contractors
etc

(down a lot since I was there)

> Words matter, especially when you are trying to persuade others.

now a days, no one listens anyway.

Actually, there was. Review the context of the times and the competing aircraft in development at the time- namely the SST/Concorde projects. The decision to move mass numbers of people at once aboard slower aircraft (when jet fuel was cheap) was more economical. Hence, today you still see 747s in the skies and Concordes in museums.

If you were a contractor at NASA, then you would know that all the processing for space related stuff at NASA is done by United Space Alliance (USA), not United Launch Alliance (ULA).

United Launch Alliance (ULA) only builds and launches products owned by Boeing & Lockheed Martin (Atlas & Delta). No processing or facilities support.

This information is on their respective websites, so I don’t know why you keep insisting otherwise. I know this is a small thing, but because you state that you were a contractor working at NASA, you should know who was paying who.

The other number that bugged me is when I stated “NASA has 17,900 employees”, and you said “and up to90% of the staffs at centers are contractors”. Being a former manager, I know the difference between an employee and a contractor, and you’re implying that the U.S. Government only has 1,790 NASA employees on the payroll across 20 centers, and that the rest of the bodies are all contractors – that does not pass the smell test.

Maybe you meant to say that NASA has 17,900 employees, but that they also have a lot of contractors at the same facilities doing contract work. That I could believe, but that’s not what you said.

Words matter, especially when you are trying to persuade others.

“Their wasn’t a market for the 747 either until it was built.

Actually Pan Am pushed Boeing to build the 747 because they were running into congestion problems at airport terminals, and the CEO of Pan Am saw that there was a market for a larger capacity transport.

We don’t have this problem yet for launching cargo or crew, but that would be an excellent justification for an HLV – when we get to that point, which we’re not.

I’m not against HLV, I’m just against spending my tax $$ on an HLV until there is a defined need, and then only to use my $$ to assist the industry, not be the owner/operator.

Yes, there was. Boeing wouldn’t have built it without a commitment from Juan Trippe to buy a number of them.

Well there was a big market for air cargo and passenger transport. So at least you knew scaling up from a 707 was likely to work.

Though a big question is since we have virtually no market or transport now, and we all think that there’s a huge potential market, one could argue that if someone (like NASA) skipped ahead and developed not a crappy HLV – but a adaptable high quality craft, say a CATS safe RLV, in MLV or HLV –could that crafts low costs and availability jump start new space industries?

To break the chicken and egg trap of space industrialization, would be a solid justification to build the craft?