That is probably a wise move. Let’s just ignore each other…

(No reply necessary…)

“There is a solution that would provide both a 100+ mT payload launcher AND an independent manned launcher at the same time and at a cost for both at that of only a 70 mT launcher, or even less.”

You seem confused what the issue is.

The issue isn’t whether we can build a 70mt, 100mt or even 130mt launcher. The question is do we need to?

Why do we need a launcher bigger than any payloads currently funded?

If bigger payloads are coming, wouldn’t it make sense to wait until the need is identified, and then decide if we need 20, 50, 70, 100, 130 or 150mt ability?

The whole idea behind the SLS is that there will be a long line of mega-sized payloads that require a 130mt launcher, and that the need will stretch out over decades.

When will Congress identify the budget for this long list of payloads? Where will it fit in the NASA budget? There are too many unanswered questions to commit $Billions of taxpayer money.

We don’t lack launchers – we lack funded payloads.

Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.
http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?p=270195&postcount=9

Bob Clark

It may or may not happen, but the SLS program is going to spend billions of dollars on it, per AW:

“The competition would pit that solid-fuel booster against a new liquid-fuel booster powered by an engine to be developed by Aerojet in Sacramento, Calif., and manufactured by Teledyne Brown Engineering in Huntsville, Ala.

According to Julie Van Kleeck, Aerojet vice president for space programs, the new engine would be a U.S.-built version of the Russian-based AJ-26 engine that Aerojet is preparing as the main-stage engine for the Orbital Sciences Corp. Taurus II commercial cargo booster for International Space Station resupply. Built from surplus Soviet-era NK-33 engines, the AJ-26 generates about 340,000 lb. of thrust at sea level.

The new engine — now designated only the -500 — would generate 500,000 lb. of thrust at sea level and be built in expanded Teledyne Brown facilities in Huntsville under a joint venture announced June 3.

‘The combination of Aerojet’s leadership in engine design and production and Teledyne’s experience with complex engineered systems and advanced manufacturing creates a strong, unchallengeable offering to customers,’ Teledyne Brown President Rex Geveden, a former director of nearby MSFC, said at the time…

Bolden’s decision was foreshadowed by public letters sent to him by Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein of California, and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) urging him to compete SLS propulsion.

‘It was never our intent to foreclose the possibility of utilizing competition, where appropriate,’ Shelby wrote to Bolden on June 10, referring to the NASA reauthorization language. ‘ … I have seen no evidence that foregoing competition for the booster system will speed development of SLS or, conversely, that introducing competition will slow the program down.'”

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awx/2011/06/16/awx_06_16_2011_p0-337088.xml&headline=NASA%20To%20Compete%20Space%20Launch%20System%20Boosters&channel=space

It’s yet another, unnecessary engine development intended to retain jobs, not get a new HLLV to the pad as efficiently and quickly as possible.

FWIW…

AeroJet would like to replace the SRBs with AJ-26s, but that isn’t going to happen… Not a refurbished 1960s leftover from the failed Soviet Moon program.

Flight 1. launch the LTV to the ISS unmanned. Without the LAS Orion could be lofted by the cheaper Atlas launcher(est. launch cost about 200 million). No time constraint here, it just has to arrive before the crew and it could even carry supplies to the ISS too.

Flight 2. Launch the lunar crew to the ISS with the normal ISS rotation crew. The commercial crew craft all hold 7. Assuming 1 pilot(and in theory he could be a part of either crew), that leaves 6 slots open for crew. That would yield either 3 crew to the ISS and 3 crew to L1/l2 or 4 crew to the ISS and 2 to L1/L2. As this flight would take place no matter what there wouldn’t be an expense to the lunar program. It would be shared between both ISS and this program. Assume about 200 million for this mission split between the ISS and the lunar program so 100 million.

Flight 3 Launch an EDS stage via Delta IV heavy, current cost about 400 million, but in 2008 ULA offered 300 million a pop if NASA would commit to buying nine for Orion. Economies of scale are your friend. The launch window opens every ten days from the ISS so in theory you could have multiple chances to do it.

So far we have spent 700 million about the cost of a shuttle launch and we have a BEO mission of sorts.

Now you do need a space station at L1/L2 and you can put one there beforehand. Something like sundancer could work as it only masses 8MT however :

http://www.futureinspaceoperations.com/papers/HumanOps_Beyond_LEO_11_2010.pdf

Thinks you could put a 16MT one there with just two launches of Delta IV heavy. A Cygnus could hold enough supply for a crew of 4 to last 180 days and could be throw there by an Atlas rocket. Cygnus and Dragon resupply craft could share costs with the ISS/Commercial versions. Unlike Apollo, this space station would be used over many missions and for many years. Resupply probably would cost about 200-300 million via Cygnus. I might not have a 4-5 billion space shuttle sized budget, but I do have BEO missions for about 1 billion a year and any reduction in launch cost means I can do more with the same amount of money! I don’t need budget increases to get to the next step(like many NASA programs).

If you would like a lunar landing, your probably need some propellant transfer or you need a slightly larger rocket say a Delta Phase I or an FH. They could throw a lunar lander to l1/l2(or even your spacecraft directly).Gravy well do suck in that they really increase your mass requirements, but again it is manageable.

With these elements you now can work on your technology.

For instance if you use a Dream Chaser XL, you wont be disposing of an Orion at $800 million a pop. That means that a small budget increase can do much more(i can buy other hardware vs. be stuck in a replace cycle).

If I use SEP, I can greatly increase the amount of cargo I can take to and from the moon. If my SEP can make multiple trip through the van allen belt, I can use a Taurus II or a Falcon nine to resupply my station(this would be a great savings). Even better if I can mover my lunar lander or some of it’s propellant this way.

Just as I can depart from the ISS, I could also depart from a Prop depot. If I can share the flight with paying tourist, I can offset some of the cost of the launch. The prop depot in LEO would allow me to carry much more mass to the moon without the high fixed costs of an specialized lunar HLV. FH, Delta phase I, Atlas phase 1 small enough that it can share parts and pads with its smaller versions.

That is obvious with every moronic post you make. The problem is, it’s not your money.

You can argue for idiotic and unaffordable architectures all you like, and if you have tens of billions of dollars to waste, you could waste them to your heart’s delight.

But it’s our money, not yours, and we aren’t going to pay much attention to idiots who “don’t mind spending the money.”

http://history.nasa.gov/DPT/Architectures/Moon%20-%20L1-Moon%20Exploration%20Architecture%20DPT%20Jun_00.pdf

Yes it did depend on aerobraking to get back to the ISS or remain in orbit long enough for the shuttle to pick it up, but in theory you could do the same thing with Orion or Dragon now if you skip the aerobraking and directly return. Something like Dream Chaser XL: http://www.iloa.org/spdv_study4.html . Could also work.

Development of either long term storage of lox/loh or use of lox/methane would help greatly as you would reduce the mass of your craft.

“But right now SLS is a whole lot more real than a Merlin 2 or Falcon XX.”

The SLS, which hasn’t even been defined enough to tell Congress, is still far more “real” than any of it’s mythical payloads.

What funded programs are slated to use the SLS? None.

A bottle rocket could handle that, and save the U.S. Taxpayer $Billions.