ULA already has their launcher evolution mapped out, and you can see that they are thinking somewhat along those lines:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361835main_08%20-%20ULA%20%201.0_Augustine_Public_6_17_09_final_R1.pdf

“No, what you are seeing is a conflict within Congress between those that want a to begin with a true STS derived 70 T launcher and those that want the 130mT Ares-5”

I don’t see the direct evidence of that, and if anything the ones talking are clearly in the 130T camp, so not much of a conflict.

“Now a smart company (i.e. one interested in making a lot of money quickly) would seize this opportunity to sign up to producing the Jupiter-130”

I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the 13 proposals came back with a DIRECT copy, but they are going to have a hard time making it the most cost-effective solution, even using government facilities. There is a reason why the Shuttle program cost $200M/month, and only part of that was for the orbiter.

“A key contract provision though will be to get NASA out of our way. This did wonders for what SpaceX was able to achieve.”

SpaceX is a commercial company that took on government work. What you’re describing is kind of the opposite, which will have a hard time surviving in the commercial marketplace.

“We just happen to have bunch of proven hardware and bunch of experienced workers standing by to make it so, but not for long.”

You’re ignoring the rest of the aerospace industry with this statement. ULA is not going away, nor is Lockheed, Boeing, ATK, Orbital, Pratt & Whitney or the vast second tier suppliers. The only real capability we might be losing is the ability to cast 12ft diameter SRM’s, but otherwise the general skill sets needed to design, build and launch rockets is alive and well after Shuttle goes away.

No, what you are seeing is a conflict within Congress between those that want a to begin with a true STS derived 70 T launcher and those that want the 130mT Ares-5; or as I like to call them the realists and delusional members/staff of Congress respectively.

Regardless, NASA has sent a clear message to the delusional members/staff of Congress that they can’t develop the 130 mT Ares-5 by 2016 for the money they have been allocated.

So this gives the upper hand to the realists confirming their wisdom that we should start with a more modest STS derived 70 T launcher with serial development of the core followed by the new upperstage/engine if needed. The Jupiter-130 is also evolvable to the Jupiter-252 (ie Ares-5 Classic).

Again as I have said many times there is a very really possibility (actually a hope of mine and others) that technology advancement may enable the 10m diameter payload and 70 T lift capability of the entry level Jupiter-130 to be more than good enough for decades to come if for no other reason than simply being able to afford the new breakthrough mission now possible.

Now if the delusion members/staff of Congress get there way and we foolishly (once again mind you) start down the Ares-5 development path it will die about three years from now due to its inability to fit through the narrow time window we have for the burn rate Congress has assigned to the SLS.

Now a smart company (i.e. one interested in making a lot of money quickly) would seize this opportunity to sign up to producing the Jupiter-130 and agree to split the savings with the government for every dollar they under run the overall budget assigned to the SLS. Other incentives could be provided for schedule and fixed operational cost savings as well. A key contract provision though will be to get NASA out of our way. This did wonders for what SpaceX was able to achieve.

Everyone gets so focused on this or that hardware, but in the end success and failure always derives from the individuals and culture that brings that hardware to life. We just happen to have bunch of proven hardware and bunch of experienced workers standing by to make it so, but not for long.

The point of all this is that NASA has failed. Shuttle is going away and the only option on the table is commercial. NASA, with an annual budget of $19B can’t get its act together well enough to churn out a design for a rocket it can actually afford to build. On a schedule it can actually afford to pay for.
Commercial wins by default.

If only. The strategy seems to be to waste another few billion, and a few more years in the process. But it saves or creates jobs, so that’s OK.

Indeed, I agree with Mr. Oler. The end of NASA HSF as we know it is upon us. And while there are HSF commercial entities in various stages of success and operations, take away the ISS, you are left with space tourism.

I suppose Bolden’s strategy here is to ‘dither’ away some time arguing with Congress, perhaps wasting a few hundred million in the process, while Space X and Orbital ramp up, Shuttle ends, and the issue of ‘jobs for my district’ is mute, as there aren’t any to save. Then Congress can back off and save some face.

I guess.

If HSF is really to be a free enterprise driven activity I’d let the ISS sink in the ocean, and see what free enterprise does w/o a government tenant.

In essence, what Mr. Oler is saying is that NASA, at least in its HSF arm, doesn’t have a future. Oh, a small segment that will be responsible for leasing commercial crew flights to the ISS and training US crews for the station will endure, but that will be it. In his vision of the future, there will be no large government HSF organisation – no rockets, no spacecraft and no human exploration program. Such BEO human exploration as happens will be the work of private visionaries who are able to generate finance (much as the explorers of the 19th Century did) and leverage commercial crewed spaceflight technologies.

“What people fail to understand is that the best launch system is by definition the one that generates sufficient political support in order to fund it.”

That’s only true for government-run launcher systems.

The commercial world, while not completely free of non-market driven decisions, is definitely more removed from Congressional purview.

And really Stephen, you can’t possibly be recommending pork barrel politics as the best way to choose the best launch system, can you? Doesn’t that ignore the best value for the American Taxpayer?