That number of flights would put 9,000,000 lbs of mass into LEO. Let your imagine run wild here a second – what could you do with 1/9th of that in fuel, or 1,000,000 lbs of LOX/LH2? How large of a spacecraft could you push to L1 or an NEO?

I just mention this to bring up what kind of alternatives are possible by NOT building an HLLV, and using existing launchers.

The projected needed budget is $144B (vs $129B projected available), which I guess shows how well they wanted to stick to reality.

37.5%, or $54B is for the HLLV (probably R&D + operations)
3.1%, or $4.5B is for developing commercial crew (no details)
2.7%, or $4B is for commercial crew deliveries
20%, or $29B is for Mission & Ground ops + infra. dev. & Program Integ.
1.2%, or $1.7B is for robotic precursor
35%, or $51B for spacecraft hardware

Out of their spacecraft hardware list, the only item that doesn’t fit on a Delta IV Heavy (or smaller) launcher is the Deep Space Habitat at 23,600 kg (52,029 lbs), but if it shed 1,000 kg it would fit, or they could use Atlas V or Falcon 9 heavies.

All of their spacecraft hardware looks to be custom, except for the CTV and kick stage. I wonder how much could be saved by using ISS hardware (Node 3, Quest, ERA, etc.), and how much by using ULA’s proposed ACES family of commercial tankers?

Bottom line – except for fuel, there is no space hardware that existing families of launchers could not launch. An HLLV only reduces the amount of in-space assembly and fuel transfers.

It would be interesting to have the team go back and see how they could reduce costs using ISS hardware, ACES and commercial launchers. Not all of that would be what we would take to Mars (part of the exercise), but I honestly don’t think we’re going to Mars anyways without a gravity-simulating (i.e. rotating) spacecraft – and that’s going to take a while.

I think the chances of anything viable coming out of SD-HLV is slim. I wonder how much money we will waste before Congress gets it right. Baby steps describes the speed of government at least they have stopped the VA vs. NASA debates with the restructuring of the committees.

Thanks brobof, I didn’t catch that.

HEFT is very disappointing to me but it also reinforces my long stated belief that commercial space needs to go around NASA rather than through NASA.

My sentiments exactly Bill.

But it’s my firm belief that NASA needs commercial launch to be viable in order for the agency, in any form, to survive. Because in the end, it is a projection of American soft power on the global stage, so even in this divided political environment, all agree that NASA is a necessary agency, no matter anyone’s political opinion.

And in this political cycle, it looks like commercial crew and a SD-HLV is going to happen, no matter what CxP or HEFT plans are.

Baby steps as far as NASA is concerned.

“There seems to be a mindset that NASA per se is a failure however I’d like to point out that IMO it’s only the HSF side that seems to have problems.”

JPL has been a much more successful exploration organization than JSC and for a lot less money.

“Most of the robotic exploration side have been successful and in some cases, outstandingly so.”

There have been a lot of failures too (MO, MCO, MPL) but there is a greater tolerance for risk taking and greater payoffs. HSF is very risk adverse – not that it has allowed them to successful avoid failure.

“That said, the missions seem to be getting bigger and also the cost blowouts. Hopefully they’re not going down the HSF route as well.”

There is a pendulum that swings between bigger missions and smaller missions. The last cycle peaked with Galileo and Cassini then it swung back towards Mars Pathfinder and “faster, better, cheeper”. The current cycle is peaking with MSL and JWST. It is probably time to start swinging back towards smaller missions.

Well said. The fundamental difficulty of doing business in space is the cost of getting there. NASA should concentrate its efforts on reducing the cost of space access – primarily by partnering with the private sector – until space access stops being the problem.

Outstanding. I want to sit at your table (at any symposium or convention).

The Senate proposal may be the best we can hope for now, though it satisfies the power centers and dreamkeepers, to a degree (to a fault), and says, “we’re not ready to get real quite yet.”

By the way, I’d like to thank those of you who make factual arguments for changing my thinking on some things. Please keep your lines of communication open to non-techies, who are after all, most voters and taxpayers. And to the person who suggested I didn’t know much about politics, thank you for putting a smile on my face!

If Chris Chyba is right about the “game evolver” the next few years should be interesting for those of us in the interested, taxpaying and onlooking public. It is tantalizing that a government agency could slowly evolve. I predict a bit of stress there, as priorities change.

I suspect the commercial sector will gain a foothold with private customers and ISS cargo, until their participation in orbital activities become accepted, and NASA’s role, due to budget stress, “evolves” to a place that more closely resembles the founding document.

The original role for NASA is not a come down, rather it is an opportunity to be an engine for R&D, powering the new economic sector of space biz.