“You see this is the problem; all these solutions you regulars have for the problems that an HLV would solve do not exist- they are decades down the road even if they can be solved. I am not optimistic about storing liquid hydrogen for any amount of time in space”

I’m curious – how do HLV’s solve the problem of storing Hydrogen and other consumables in space?

Explain to us how HLV’s will supply the ISS and all the other space stations and vehicles in space with fuel and other consumables, and how they will be so much better than using the proposed fuel depot solutions.

Maybe you just haven’t provided us enough information for us to see the advantages you see for HLV’s?

Your mistake is assuming it is “elementary.” It is not like your high school science lab.

It’s “elementary” in the sense that transfer of fluids from one tank to another is a rudimentary building block of almost any industrial or commercial process.

Ultimately, space is going to have to pay its way. That means industrial activities out there. Any industrial activity will be a web of interconnected “elementary” processes. If those elementary building blocks make us cower in fear, what chance is there that the much more complex activities of an actual mine, or refinery, or manufacturing plant, could pass muster?

No, MichaelC, your timidity is a position against space *ever* being economically productive. You are actually arguing that manned space spending should be zero, not that heavy launch vehicles should be built.

How could we have left LEO by 2028 without an EDS? There wasn’t any funding going towards it. 2028 was the estimated best case for just the Ares 1, orion, Ares V. That’s it, no EDS, no Altair lander, no lunar base, no ISRU. By 2028 all we would have been able to do is fly the Orion to the ISS.

Oh wait, the ISS would have been deorbited by the end 2015, NASA would have been flying around in circles in the orion crew capsule from 2016 until 2035 with no space station. Ya the american taxpayer would have readlily funded that. 19 years of flying a capsule in earth orbit…lol

I think it is clear enough that an HLV could be developed from the Shuttle reasonably straightforwardly. It is also clear enough that NASA doesn’t know how to design launch vehicles anymore, that EELV would be a better basis for a (smaller) HLV, and that HLV isn’t necessary at all. To that I would add that an HLV is actually harmful because it gets in the way of development of cheap lift.

But other than that it’s great!

Propellant transfer is not a new space idea. So many “new” ideas were already dreamt of by the pioneers. Von Braun had clear ideas about the use of depots and even Tsiolkovsky wrote about it. Propellant transfer is also a proven technology.

Impossible already happened.”

The shuttle is not an HLV. You can’t count the orbiter as payload – the payload is contained in the orbiter. The Shuttle is certainly not an HLV with 150 tons of lift. The Shuttle didn’t fly 12 missions per year on average. It didn’t fly 12 missions in any year. When flight rate was pushed higher, it failed. The Shuttle didn’t leave money for exploration payloads. The 150 ton HLV is in even worse shape than that since it doesn’t even exist at the moment.

From the 2008 campaign:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/06/mccain-wants-a-man-on-mars.html

McCain Wants a Man on Mars

“McCain said ever since reading Ray Bradbury’s Martian Chronicles, “I’m intrigued by a man on Mars. I think it would excite the imagination of the American people … Americans would be very willing to do that.””

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080606111510.5jnz56gu

McCain would like to see a man on Mars

“Presumptive Republican White House nominee John McCain said Thursday he would like to see a manned mission to Mars as part of a “better set of priorities” for NASA that would better engage the public.”

“Project Constellation would’ve simply been slowed down, but NOT eliminated;”

Constellation was way behind schedule. It was already on a course to get astronauts to the Moon not in 2020, but in the mid-2030’s, while devouring funding from the rest of NASA including Moon work. How much would McCain have slowed Constellation down if he was starting with that?

“he would’ve had no pre-conceived biases about the Moon being unworthy of future manned visits.”

Noone is saying the Moon is unworthy of future manned visits. Bolden, Garver, and other NASA officials have said again and again that they expect NASA to get astronauts to the lunar surface sooner with their original FY2011 plan than Constellation would have. Obama just said the Moon isn’t the first destination, not that the Moon wasn’t a destination. That’s entirely consistent with the Augustine Committee Flexible Path options, which do include the Moon as an option after reaching lunar orbit, E-M Lagrange points, E-S Lagrange points, and NEOs. Note that the first destinations (lunar orbit, E-M Lagrange points) are quite useful for lunar surface visits. Personally I’d move the lunar surface up a spot or 2 in that line, but that wouldn’t get to the lunar surface any faster, it would just allow more work and visits to the earlier destinations. Of course with Congress’s SLS and MPCV, all bets are off for any lunar surface or deep space visits, since those 2 items will be very expensive and put exploration technology, commercial space access, affordable versions of HLV, and robotic precursors in jeopardy.

Even with the looming SLS and MPCV, the Moon isn’t doing too bad. Here are some missions in the U.S.:

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) – about the only part of the VSE that survived Constellation, doing a great job
Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) – also did well
Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) – development
Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) – development
Lunar Quest (multi-purpose NASA lunar science program for missions, technology, studies, etc) – budgeted
ARTEMIS – 2 repurposed THEMIS spacecraft
Google Lunar X PRIZE – from the point of view of the U.S. and NASA, 6 U.S. teams now have Innovative Lunar Demonstrations Data contracts with the agency
MoonRise – the South Pole-Aitken Basin sample return mission is one of 3 New Frontiers finalists
Robonaut – I don’t know if they’ll get there, but they have their sights set on the Moon
lunar surface robotic precursor mission – the first robotic precursor mission in the Administration’s Robotic Precursor line was a lunar surface robotic precursor to test lunar ISRU, etc. I don’t know how it will do in the reduced funding world of SLS/MPCV, but it was strong in the original FY2011 budget.

In addition to these robotic missions, lunar surface visits would benefit from most of the FY2011 exploration technology efforts that were originally planned: ISRU (starting with lunar volatiles characterization and ISRU), SEP, propellant depots, ECLSS, inflatable habitats, space tug, autonomous precision landing (probably to be tested on a lunar mission), telerobotics (first ISS and then lunar rover), etc.

My period carries more credibility than yours.

Also,”all of your newspace schemes compared to the certainty of a successful HLV. ”

1. ULA is not new space
2. successful HLV is not a certainty, not matter how many times you type it.
3. NASA doesn’t have the expertise to design launch vehicles anymore

One failure of SRB out of over 260 firings resulting in catastrophic loss of crew.

We should be able to add 50 tons on using 5 segment SRB’s and RS-68’s.

By using the second stage as a skylab type wet workshop (skylab was actually a small dry workshop) we could send up a hundred missions over the next ten years.

We have had thirty years to perfect the SRB and LH2 engine technology; it will work. Period.

Now consider all of your newspace schemes compared to the certainty of a successful HLV.

It is the only way we are going to explore anything besides the inside of the ISS.

By the way, nice picture of a comet on the cover of USA today.