Comments on: Nelson, Hutchison, and Hall respond to NASA report http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/01/13/nelson-hutchison-and-hall-respond-to-nasa-report/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nelson-hutchison-and-hall-respond-to-nasa-report Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: richard schumacher http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/01/13/nelson-hutchison-and-hall-respond-to-nasa-report/#comment-338091 Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:05:08 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4292#comment-338091 Time and money are running out. This concept can still meet Congress’ requirements for schedule, budget, and re-use of at least some Shuttle components:
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_single_stage_to_orbit_thought_experiment.shtml
It also provides a path for future developments such as flyback boosters and recovery of assets from orbit.

But it would be better overall for the HLV notion to simply die, because it’s mostly pork and there’s no need for it. As many have pointed out HLV would starve the development of a more efficient operational model using less expensive more reliable launchers, in-orbit assembly, refueling and servicing capabilities, and so on.

]]> By: Fred Cink http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/01/13/nelson-hutchison-and-hall-respond-to-nasa-report/#comment-338069 Tue, 18 Jan 2011 01:51:03 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4292#comment-338069 Mr Oler, thank you SSOO very much for the link to msnbc, probably the the most viewed and highly respected source of news (especially science related) on the entire planet.

]]> By: Ben Russell-Gough http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/01/13/nelson-hutchison-and-hall-respond-to-nasa-report/#comment-338015 Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:09:26 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4292#comment-338015 @ Aggelos,

instead of triple core or falcon 9 cores strapped..
why not shuttle srbs around?less volume,,more mass..

Because the Falcon-9 core couldn’t handle the g-loadings and other mechanical forces – It would be triple or more its designed limits.

Oh, and Congress simply said use Shuttle and Ares heritage parts “wherever practicable” and specified required lift performance. They didn’t specify particular parts or suppliers by name. The RSRM is good enough for a SDLV but it is hardly optimal.

]]> By: Aggelos http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/01/13/nelson-hutchison-and-hall-respond-to-nasa-report/#comment-337947 Sat, 15 Jan 2011 20:49:26 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4292#comment-337947 A vehicle ofcourse like that will have veeery biig thrust,,and vibration at liftoff I suppose..

But nasa studies for kerolox core because Nelson plan dont specify hydrogen or engines for the core,,but just liquid..

Its an open window..

]]> By: Aggelos http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/01/13/nelson-hutchison-and-hall-respond-to-nasa-report/#comment-337946 Sat, 15 Jan 2011 20:47:15 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4292#comment-337946 ‘@ Aggelos Why bother have RSRMs on a multi-1Mlbf+ kerolox-
powered HLV?”

because congress wants clearly on paper..the say liquid for the core,,but the same srbs by Atk..

‘A 5 x Merlin-2-powered vehicle would have in
the area of 7-8 million pounds of thrust at”

The Falcon X design has 3 “merlin 2″ engines..40t payload.6m diameter

instead of triple core or falcon 9 cores strapped..
why not shuttle srbs around?less volume,,more mass..

]]> By: Ben Russell-Gough http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/01/13/nelson-hutchison-and-hall-respond-to-nasa-report/#comment-337915 Sat, 15 Jan 2011 17:13:12 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4292#comment-337915 @ Aggelos Why bother have RSRMs on a multi-1Mlbf+ kerolox-
powered HLV? The boosters are only on the shuttle because the SSMEs
aren’t powerful enough to lift its mass off the pad and through the
early stage of flight. A 5 x Merlin-2-powered vehicle would have in
the area of 7-8 million pounds of thrust at
launch, more than sufficient with a good upper stage (maybe a
RL-10B-2 cluster) to put 100t into LEO. Adding RSRMs to that would
be a needless and expensive elaboration that would only make VAB
and pad handling more difficult and dangerous.

]]> By: Martijn Meijering http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/01/13/nelson-hutchison-and-hall-respond-to-nasa-report/#comment-337908 Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:29:50 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4292#comment-337908 Its possible ?

Why would you even want it? We already have adequate launch vehicles.

]]> By: Byeman http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/01/13/nelson-hutchison-and-hall-respond-to-nasa-report/#comment-337894 Sat, 15 Jan 2011 13:52:54 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4292#comment-337894 “It will be, as soon as the agency is made a civilian department/division under the protective wing of the DoD,”

It is like a kid repeating the same thing over and over. No matter how many times you say it DSCSA, it is not going to come true.

“where it can be more fully funded, ”

That is completely wrong. The DOD Space Test Program struggles yearly because of inadequate funding and their missions are more directly applicable to the DOD.

]]> By: Pathfinder_01 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/01/13/nelson-hutchison-and-hall-respond-to-nasa-report/#comment-337891 Sat, 15 Jan 2011 13:34:20 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4292#comment-337891 ah the 1.8 billion buys 5 launchers. 1.8 billion would only buy 2 shuttle flights!

]]> By: Stephen C. Smith http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/01/13/nelson-hutchison-and-hall-respond-to-nasa-report/#comment-337890 Sat, 15 Jan 2011 11:00:01 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4292#comment-337890 On the V-22, there’s also this lenghty 2007 Time exposé:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1665835,00.html

No reason to respond to the resident troll, everyone knows he’ll argue the sky is plaid if it gets him attention. I wish people would just ignore him.

]]>