Why would I need to “focus” on that? Only an idiot would think that it’s my job, as opposed to Spacex’s. And they seem to be doing so.

“We will see it in a Falcon Heavy world as well, for a lot less money.”

More press release shilling for a paper rocket that does not exist.

Best you focus on the problem at hand, getting the Falcon/Dragon/ISS servicing system operational. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

I agree, I think the federal government should build huge trucks also. We build skyscrapers on their side and just load them on the government trucks and drive the skyscraper to the site and tip it up.. gosh now that would be something. If only we have gigantic government designed, developed, built at cost plus and operated by the dept of transportation.

Can just imagine what this would open up? Gone would all these small 18 wheelers that haul stuff to build skyscrapers. Just do it one go. The business community would be all over these!

We could haul buildings and all kinds of neat stuff if only we had gigantic government operated trucks.

Yep. As in any business.

Let’s see. You insult your customer and then you expect the customer to come and buy your product? You better have one heck of a great product. Which DIRECT is not. Stephen’s advocacy is turning into a bitter rant.

My advice: Stephen should go do something else before he gets eaten alive by his own doing. Sometime cutting your losses is the best thing to do. Or you can dream that a future President and Congress will see the light but then again what are the chances?

Oh well…

“Regardless of whether its 75mT or closer to what the STS stack does now at 110mT the operational $/kg numbers are still very good for the Jupiter-130 at only 2 launches per year.”

If you want people to believe and use your numbers, you need to stick with whatever you publish, regardless if it’s your safe number or what you consider a “real” number. Take a page from SpaceX, where they bumped up their Falcon Heavy numbers only after they had validated them internally, and I bet they are still holding onto some margin.

It’s OK to give the customer more than they ask for, but don’t give them less. Your using inconsistent numbers is less, especially since someone that doesn’t know you can’t end up with the same answer your provide.

“If we only charged the incremental launch cost, the space based solar business case would finally close. There is just a whole host of good things that could happen in a Jupiter-130 world.”

Look, until you get customers committing to using your rocket, it has no future. If you need a current example of this, just compare SpaceX and their Falcon 9 with ATK/Astrium and their Liberty. One has $3B in customer backlog, and the other has $0. Both are new rocket companies, but one knows how to sell to rocket customers, and the other doesn’t.

Until you can convince customers to risk their money on you, you will never launch. It’s not NASA’s fault, it’s not Congresses fault, it’s not Obama’s fault, it’s your fault. That’s just the harsh truth of the business world.

You are just one of many fungible forms of transportation, and until there is a demonstrated need for your unique attributes (what makes you not a fungible commodity), you’re going nowhere.

Blaming others doesn’t get you launch customers.

Your point on affording the payload that the even the Jupiter-130 could put up there is good one, which is why Griffinistas attempt at resurrecting the Ares-5 is foolish to the extreme. If the budget/need arises the Jupiter-130 can be upgraded all the way up to the Ares-5 classic configuration faster than the new missions can be brought on line.

I guess when it comes down to it, it’s hard to look forward to rehashed missions of the last fifty years. The serious cost overruns of exciting mission objectives like JWST and MSL didn’t have anything to do with ‘management’ as NASA claimed, it was the technical challenge of trying to exceed the objectives of past missions (or why bother) while constrained to the existing launch systems. There are also important national security improvements the Jupiter-130 would specifically enable. If we only charged the incremental launch cost, the space based solar business case would finally close. There is just a whole host of good things that could happen in a Jupiter-130 world.

The biggest regret is that we didn’t do this after Challenger. Imagine what we could have done by now?

The biggest problem though is if the SLS goes down the money will not go to Space but simple go back into the general fund and represent a bug splat on the windshield worth of difference to the fiscal mess we are in.

All good leaders understand that before a people can do what seems to be the impossible they must first believe that they can do the impossible. NASA is a great way through example to inspire the American people to move through this fiscal crises (ie our best days are still ahead). Think back at all the past great Presidents that lead this nation out of tough times, they all have this in common. Hopefully we can have some influence on the next President because this one clearly doesn’t get what being President is all about, at least in American anyway.

“Would you have us believe that a 75mT by 10m spacecraft cut up into 3x25mT by 5m chunks is the same?”

I’m sure you’re aware of the term “trade studies”. Whenever someone finally gets approval for a program that requires lots of mass into orbit, they will first be doing trade studies to find out the best combination of size and other factors. Some of that will take into account what will fit on available launchers, and some of that will take into account the cost to build.

I know you like to focus on what the Jupiter family of launchers can do, but I’m from the manufacturing world, so I look at the cost to build the payloads. So far we can build 4.5m diameter (ISS sized modules) on existing tooling and use existing test facilities. Not only that, but those modules fit on ground and air transportation. Not so with 10m diameter modules.

Not to say that we couldn’t upscale all our facilities and transportation systems. They did it for Apollo, but unless you have lots of money, or you plan on using them on a continuous basis, the trade studies would probably show that existing 4.5m assemblies work just fine. If you ever watch NASA TV, those ISS astronauts are bouncing around in all the room those modules have, so it’s not like we’re restricted. And Bigelow modules promise even larger diameter structures if needed.

So really we’re waiting for a funded need before we can decide these things – when will that happen?

“So even if the launch cost was free Space exploration and development would still be very expensive.”

Very expensive. When will someone be coughing up the money for these expensive payloads?

And will they have enough money to launch an HLV twice a year for 10 years?

I don’t know any government agency that will be doing that anytime soon, nor any foreign government that we would sell to.

What’s your guess, and when?

Uhm, i’m no more a citizen of nazi germany then you’re a citizen of the confederacy:P

And yeah, we’ll see. Just watch.

“Because that’s reality. No Shuttle crew is worth billions of dollars, and any Shuttle crew can be replaced much more quickly and easily than an orbiter.” =eye roll= Your reality. And it’s quite warped. Reaffirming your poor value system says it all- and it’s valueless to HSF. End of story.