This is what is the most frustrating to those who follow this debate.

If our representatives were really interested in a “sustained superior presence in space”, they would mandate RFPs for fixed price contracts from Lockheed or Boeing (or whomever) for whatever specific goal they had in mind.

Fuel Depot?

In Orbit Construction Of Transit Vehicle with an ISS Based Tug Mission?

Manned Lunar Orbit Mission with Robot Sample Return Landers?

Rendezvous Mission (Flags and Footprints and Sample Return) from the 2025 NEO?

A Manned Lunar Base by 2025?

NASA/Commercial Space could do all of that. They could start now, this year. The 19 Billion Dollars a year will cover all of that, and more… …or, we can waste more time and more money doing something else.

How do we pound this message through to them?

Thanks, Bennett.

I didn’t mention it, but obviously after the end of this $10B mission, the hardware is still useable, and continuing missions could be funded for probably around $3B or less, or the hardware could be reconfigured for something else (a Moon ISS, etc.).

The advantage of modular is that you can add to it pretty easily, or remove & replace sections that are out of date or don’t do what you want. All done with the same construction techniques, as well as the existing launchers.

Modular = Reusability = Saving Money

We need to spend what money we have getting things done, not studying ways to get things done. The “off the shelf” focus provides proven sub-systems. Once they’re integrated and tested in use, the elements can be replicated/launched for a reasonable price.

Fair enough question. I’ve thought about this, but never put pen to paper, so this is a quick budget version. For $10B, this is what I would do:

Mission:
– Test out in-orbit vehicle assembly techniques without a Shuttle
– Create a prototype expedition vehicle for local exploration
– Explore Lagrange, and techniques for using Lagrange points

Philosophy:
– Success is measured by what is done in space, not on the ground
– This is a temporary program with a fixed budget
– Safety is paramount, but action is required
– Use existing hardware and systems (Off-The-Shelf) where possible
– Small team sizes, operating “off-campus” from NASA

Systems:
– Leverage ISS components like Node 3, Quest Airlock, and other sub-systems to avoid R&D and NRE
– Use one crew provider (SpaceX)
– Use Delta IV Heavy for large payloads, Falcon 9 for crew and smaller payloads
– Assume ACES 41 can be developed and produced (and works)

Total Hardware & Launch = $6B

Crew = $720M
$300M for SpaceX to man-rate Falcon 9/Dragon
$140M/crew flight – Construction/checkout + two crew flights

Payload Transport = $1.752B
5ea Delta IV Heavy (4 for ACES 41, 1 for Node 3)
2ea Falcon 9 (Quest Airlock and European Robotic Arm)
1ea Dragon Supply Mission (2nd crew mission)

Exploration Vehicle = $3.534B
$1.15B for Node 3 + cupola and tug motor
$214M for Quest Airlock and tug motor
$120M for European Robotic Arm and tug motor
$1.05B for Service/Intergration Module (SIM – new design) and tug motor
$1B for 4ea ACES 41 launched partially filled

That leaves $4B for R&D, program management, salaries and overhead, and all those other costs that add up. Where possible, I used known costs for hardware, and for some, like Node 3 and my SIM, I had to guess. Hence the need for the $4B.

If I’m the one running this, I would also run this through NASA, but I would locate them in Montana, or someplace far away from any other NASA facility or oversight, because that is what is needed to keep the team small and focused. I’ve been part of a team that did this within a large company, and it can work.

Notes:

A crew of no more than three is planned, and their Dragon stays docked to the Node 3 during the trip. With the crew rotation, supplies can be brought up with the available space/capacity.

I assume that there are a number of issues that can be solved by inelegant solutions – safety first, but the bias is to build a prototype, not a pretty 1st gen vehicle. For instance, assembling the initial vehicle may require spacewalks, and the crew may have to do the first ones out of the Dragon. For the SIM, I foresee the need for a gimbaled ACES mount, because the vehicle stack will not be symmetrical. Also, the ACES provide the function of an EDS, and the RL-10’s will be added as needed (design allows 1-4).

All done without an HLV, and we could start today on getting it going.

Comments or questions?

There is some evidence that Congress and NASA outside of Marshall know that and that this HLV-now plan really is a bribe with absolutely no expectation of getting a vehicle out of it.

The industry and NASA should plan accordingly…

Sir, I did not question your integrity (I respect the years you have spent working on and pushing for HSF), I questioned your underlying motivation. It strikes me as being obtuse to claim that ANY new LV built by and for NASA will not effect funding for tech development and commercial space companies. History show exactly the opposite.

For example:

What launch vehicles would you use? How many will you need and how does that fit into your budget? How will you assemble them in orbit? What kind of integration testing is required prior to leaving orbit? What engines will you use and why? What depots (see previous questions further up)? Will the engines you select and the theoretical depot be compatible? When returning from orbiting the moon how do you intend to get the crew back? What will you do with “crew rotations”? What vehicle will be used for crew rotation, etc….

LOL, what does that even mean? I work in the private sector by the way, I am not a government employee.

I want progress too. I can say I have actually worked toward making that happen. In the end, you have a different opinion about how it should be done. The difference between you and me is what you advocate I do not “openly root against” because either HLV will work.

The justifications of why I believe what I do I have made clear I hope. Unfortunately, based on the responses, those views are not welcome hear based on some of the rather “personal” comments throughout which make it difficult to have any meaningful debate or even make coming to this site worth my time.

“The thing is you just do not want a SDLV out of some pre-concieved bias where you admit to being an “outsider” and unwilling to even listen to other views and openly admit on another article you are “rooting for failure””

I rooted for Constellation to end for the same reason I would not want an SDLV – too much cost for too little return.

My preconceived bias is to do as much as possible, while spending the least amount. Oh, and doing it within the allotted budget. SDLV is being built too soon – far before there is a sustained demand for it. Because of that, it is a waste of time and money, and diverts the small resources NASA has away from actually doing anything in space.

One way to look at it would be a competition. Let’s say you and I get $10B each, what could we do with it?

You – All your money goes towards building an SDLV, but that probably is not enough to finish it, or to build any payloads even if you did.

Me – Using existing launchers, I could assembly ISS-type components in space, add engines, add a fuel depot, and go orbit around the Moon in a nice comfy lab to test out an NEO mission. Oh, and I could probably do a couple of crew rotations too.

As an outsider, I am biased towards wanting things to be done – and I don’t care who really does them. NASA or commercial, or even ESA and JAXA, I want progress on expanding our permanent presence in space.

SDLV is not needed to start this progress, so SDLV is holding things up. As a taxpayer, I say kill it, and kill it soon, and if you have to go look for a job in the private sector, then I wish you good luck, but I don’t think you should be treated any different than me.

I hope that clears up any confusion in my previous statements…