Somthing that really bothers me is that it seems that we stop things right when they are comming into greatness. I heard that the last couple of STS flights have been at the top of their game and that Atlantis was one of the cleanest orbiters they have ever seen after STS132. Is there no credit for that? This is more of the no praise for a job well done and a lot of flack for bad things that happen mentality that is every where. Two flights lost out of 132 in thirty years isnt really that bad when you consider what goes into this and how one little thing like an o-ring or a tile or a bad decision ( remember we are human) can make it all go wrong. After all look at what was learned after each accident. I’m not saying loosing peoples lives a good way to learn but thats how life is sometimes. It took thirty years to work the kinks of the STS system and get it to a work of art and now we are going to throw it away. What a shame! I work on State of the art earth moving equipment every day and equipment downing problems sneek up on us every day. I cant imagine how they have made it as safe as they have when you compare this. Well done NASA. Keep her flying as long as you can.

“Without mentioning how much an SDHLV could lift compared to the smaller launchers, of course.”

Gary, there have been so many SDHLV designs proposed, who knows which one will actually be funded (if any). All the launcher choices I have listed have published specs, so it’s an apples-to-apples comparison for crew and cargo.

If you want to identify a set of SDHLV specs that you think should be pursued (and compared), that would be great.

“You are saying the space program has to make money?”

Pay off (or payoff) = “The climax of a narrative or sequence of events”

For instance, the payoff for Constellation was landing humans on the Moon. That was not going to happen until sometime in the mid-2020’s, or 15-20 years after the program was announced and funding started.

Apollo had to span two presidents in order to see Apollo 11 generate payoff (land & return a man). Constellation would have spanned at least three, possibly four or five presidential administrations, and 7-10 congressional bodies. That’s a long time to keep politicians focused on something that is “Apollo on steroids” – a repeat of something we’ve already done.

Defense has a return. The return is the avoided cost of being conquered. And even with defense, there is concern for cost effectiveness. Resources are finite even there.

Cx, at huge expense, would deliver us, very late, to a state of dubious value. Why should any taxpayer want to support this? (Tax-fed parasites feeding from this particular iron ricebowl notwithstanding.)

I hope they do, nothing drives innovation and capital flows faster than extra normal profits.

The day the Shuttle is permanently, irretrievably out of service is the day crew transport prices increases to $100-$200MM per seat. The price increases will start small – maybe $10-15MM for “scheduling priority” , etc. But withing 18 months, we’ll be looking at $700MM-1B/yr if we want to fully utilize US ISS rights (we won’t). There will also be terrible challenges in finding space for US personnel on the busy Soyuz manifest. We will no longer call the shots on staffing the ISS as we do today.

The US may “own” significant staffing/utilization rights on ISS, but unless the Russians take our people up we will be unable to use those”ISS rights” that the US has invested $100B to create. In canceling US direct access to ISS its as though we’ve invested $100B to “buy” a distant star. You may have a piece of paper that says you own it, but good luck with enforcing your claim on a place you can’t get to.

Naive hubris – like trying to rely on the make believe world of international law to enforce a nation’s will.

That is just a little too much to stomach Ron. How much do you think one trillion in defense spending is going to pay off this year? You are saying the space program has to make money? Is that is what it was created for- to turn a profit? I do not think so.

“What has killed NASA is the fact that the politicians have kept it trapped at LEO since 1973. That has not been good for NASA and it was not good for this country.”

The motivations of politicians will never change. Job #1 is to get re-elected, and job #2 is to do those things that support #1. Don’t get me wrong, there are many that have good intentions, but those intentions don’t always align with whatever plans you or I may have for space. That is why I believe that we need to change NASA from doing everything in space, to transitioning the routine stuff to commercial providers.

The “routine stuff” of course is not that easy, and I think NASA needs to be the guiding hand to lead commercial space forward. Whether it’s a military model (buy commercial, but government employee operated) or more of a contractor-lead model, I’m not too concerned either way.

What is clear is that the U.S. – Congress, President + public – has a hard time keeping a clear focus on $100B programs that don’t pay off for 15-20 years. We have to figure out a way to break down our goals into smaller chunks that pay off faster.

Without mentioning how much an SDHLV could lift compared to the smaller launchers, of course.

More like muddying the water.

Mass at liftoff (max.):
Shuttle = 4,470,000 lbs
Delta IV Heavy = 1,616,870 lbs

Payload to LEO (max.):
Shuttle = 53,600 lbs
Delta IV Heavy = 49,470 lbs

IF you need to put payload into orbit, then the Shuttle and Delta IV Heavy can do about the same. The Shuttle has an added advantage of having it’s own maneuvering engines for rendezvousing with another spacecraft (i.e. ISS), but the Delta IV Heavy upper stage will get the payload in the proper orbit, and then would need a small maneuvering engine to take it the rest of the way. For non-Shuttle deliveries, the ISS robotic arms can grapple the payloads and dock them (all non-Russian supplies will be delivered this way).

So far the largest Shuttle-delivered ISS segments have only weighed about 35,000 lbs, so the Delta IV Heavy (or Atlas V & Falcon 9 heavies) could easily deliver more ISS sections if needed. Even the largest Russian segment weighed 42,600 lbs – still within the capacity of dedicated launchers.

If the Shuttle is delivering internal supplies for the ISS, then it’s payload is decreased by the MPLM, which can only carry 17,636 lbs of cargo. By comparison, the SpaceX Dragon can deliver up to 13,227 lbs of combined cargo to the ISS.

If the Shuttle is delivering crew, it can carry up to eight (7 normally), of which two are the flight crew. Capsule alternatives could be Delta IV Heavy/Orion (6 crew), Falcon 9/Dragon (7 crew) or Atlas V/CST-100 (7 crew). The advantage of capsules is that they can stay docked at the ISS for emergency use, whereas the Shuttle can only stay in space for about two weeks.

Of course the real reason for the disparity in liftoff mass is that those five clustered engines are lifting a reusable spaceplane, as well as the crew & cargo, and the spaceplane weighs 172,000 lbs empty. The Shuttle has been a wonderful jack-of-all-trades but master-of-none vehicle for these past 30 years, and it’s amazing that a 1st generation vehicle like it has had such a long service life.

I won’t go into the debate about whether the Shuttle should end now, or whether a SDHLV should be it’s successor – I just wanted to clarify what it can do for cargo & crew in comparison to existing (or near-term) dedicated launch vehicles.