Well if you can’t afford to buy them then the chances are pretty good that you can’t afford a space effort, period.”

Incredibly naive world view. Not everything is sold on a worldwide fairly traded open market. And there is not enough of everything always available to be sold.

Not everybody in the world can own a original copy of Mona Lisa, no matter how much they are willing to pay.

“I don’t think I ever claimed that a lack of an HLV or SHLV is holding us back.”

Sorry to have implied that.

“That is a good point but I often see the argument that there is no need for an HLV because there is no payload and often the other argument that people can’t build a bigger payload because there is no HLV.”

We can all think of what we’d send up if we had 25, 70, or 200 ton launch capability, but that misses the point. We don’t even have a possible program that requires high mass needs, and even if we did, we haven’t done the trade-off studies to determine if current launchers can accommodate the payloads, and for how much.

NASA (and Congress) has been going about the launcher question the wrong way. They should identify the need, identify the budget, and create a competition to identify the best solution. The best solution might require a larger launcher, but at least NASA will have the facts to determine the trade-offs ($ vs capability or time).

Instead, Congress is mandating a solution to a problem that doesn’t yet exist, and may not for quite a while. By adding a non-competitive launcher into the marketplace, they skew the market forces that would build larger capacity as the market needs it. No one will compete with the government, so once the government decides to build an HLV, no company will pursue that market without lots of government funding.

The moon is the place to go. And China will go there soon.

And we should care because????

(* That’s not to say I am convinced of the need for an HLV.)

Ya, I’m not advocating for a specific HLV. I do think down the line one would be useful, especially if someone wanted to build an industrial facility on the Moon or anywhere else.

I don’t think the people arguing for only using EELV’s now think an HLV or SHLV will never be needed or useful, just that we can do a lot with our current EELV’s. Which I agree with.

So? If we don’t have a defined need, then what spec are we building an HLV to? The answer is we don’t know what size payload to build an HLV to, because we don’t really know why we need one.

That is a good point but I often see the argument that there is no need for an HLV because there is no payload and often the other argument that people can’t build a bigger payload because there is no HLV.

I’m just pointing out the catch 22 in that line of argument.

Right there that is near-term capacity increases of 28-40%, without the government having to pay $B in R&D – but no one has ordered an Atlas V Heavy or Falcon 9 Heavy.

Until we have a defined need, we don’t need an HLV. We have alternatives that are available, and they are not holding us back from going anywhere.

The other part of my comment was that the government could act at either end of the equation to provide a catalyst to the market. Perhaps you would think government would be a better provider of payloads than rockets.

I don’t think I ever claimed that a lack of an HLV or SHLV is holding us back.

If you haven’t listened to the September 23, 2010 episode of the Space Show, check it out if you want to listen to two number crunchers talk about fuel depots vs SHLV.

http://www.thespaceshow.com/

no one will create a payload for an HLV that is not affordable.

And so far government has seemed to have proven it cannot create a launch vehicle that is competitive in the market.

thats the end of the story

Not sure how my comment is in disagreement with yours.

Tell me, isn’t that on some level quite inspirational?

Course, that only gets $155 Million a year. Somehow, I don’t think thats a fair trade, if you want to talk about inspiration.

Let me make it easier.

Inspiration.