Oler, your own hostility to HSF has been demonstrated in the past, so there. >>

a goofy response. I am quite pro HSF, just not mindless space exploration by humans using government programs that are designed for technowelfare.

So here is your logic. You are using a position I do not hold to dismiss valid points I made in the fallacy of your logic.

more goofiness RGO

“Either you get a new NASA chief, or Congressional direction to change course.”

It doesn’t matter who the Administrator of NASA is, it only matters what Congress wants to spend money on. The SLS represents jobs in the right places, so they don’t care who is managing NASA.

“Again, when that disaster known as FY 11 was rolled out, they didn’t dangle carrots to the pro-Constellation crowd.”

That you advocate for decisions based on politics and not need is pretty telling. I guess you’re OK with NASA not going anywhere…

“No offers to CxP contractors to become second-source suppliers in an EELV-based strategy”

You do realize who owns the EELV manufacturer ULA, right? Boeing and Lockheed Martin, the two biggest NASA contractors that were building Constellation. They were already primes on CxP, and you’re saying Obama/Bolden should have offered them to become second-tier suppliers? You really don’t know what you are talking about.

Boeing and LM have a virtual lock on any future NASA rocket business, whether it’s through their commercial rocket company (ULA) or if NASA wants to build their own rocket (currently the SLS). Even the exploration hardware such as the MPCV are built by one of them.

I hinted at this earlier, but I guess you didn’t figure it out. Boeing and LM don’t have any incentive to REDUCE the amount of revenue they get from the U.S. Taxpayer, which is the reason they don’t push for lower cost exploration architectures that they have presented publicly. Do you understand now?

You have railed in the past about a perceived lack of vision from the Administration, yet your vision is to let politicians use NASA as a funding stream for their constituents, not to go anywhere in space. I don’t know why you bother to call yourself a space enthusiast – maybe your livelihood depends on non-competitive pork projects?

Yes, there is extensive discussion of Ares V size shuttle derived vehicles in the Augustine Report, but there was also extensive discussion of EELV derived hydrocarbon vehicles. Get this through your head, neither were recommended. There was merely a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each type of launcher. You conveniently, neglect the whole section of the report called, “6.5.3 Examination of the key question on NASA heritage vs. EELV-heritage super-heavy
vehicles”

You ignore positive statements about alternatives like:
“While there are technical differences between the two families, the Committee intended the principal difference to be programmatic. The EELV-heritage super heavy would represent a new way of doing business for NASA, which would have the benefit of potentially lowering development and operational costs. The Committee used the EELV heritage super-heavy vehicle to investigate the possibility of an essentially commercial acquisition of the required heavy launch capability by a small NASA organization similar to a system program office in the Department of Defense. It would eliminate somewhat the historic carrying cost of many Apollo- and Shuttle-era facilities and systems. This creates the possibility of substantially reduced operating costs, which may ultimately allow NASA to escape its conundrum of not having sufficient resources to both operate existing systems and build a new one.“

Now there are other advantages mentioned for Shuttle-derived vehicles, just as there were other advantages mentioned for Commercially derived HLVs. There are also relative disadvantages mentioned for both. But neither was recommended

Stop the dishonesty, Matt. Again, do you have no shame? You have reached levels of mendacity comparable to amightywind.

Ron and Rick: Augstine’s Summary Report on p. 6:

“In a different, related architecture (to Constellation), the Orion and Altair are launched on two separate “Lite” versions of Ares V, providing more robust mass margins. Building a single NASA vehicle could reduce carrying and operations costs, and accelerate heavy-lift development. Of these two (the POR was the other) the Committee finds the Ares V lite in the dual mode the preferred reference option.

“The more directly Shuttle-derived family consists of in-line and side-mount vehicles substantially derived from the Shuttle, providing more continuity in workforce. The development cost of the more shuttle derived-system would be lower, but it would be less capable from the Ares V family and have higher recurring costs. The lower launch capability could be offset by developing on-orbit refueling.”

That is what NASA is on track to do. Develop an Ares V Light-type vehicle, and develop on-orbit refueling.

Again, NASA cannot spend any money or do anything WITHOUT Congressional Approval. If you want NASA to adopt a EELV/Depot based strategy, you need more congresscritters (Rohrabacher’s the only one so far) to push for that. Note that when SLS was rolled out, the Congressional members present werre bipartisan, and not just from Science and Tech committees, but from Appropriations. Regardless of party differences on other issues, this is something that nearly all of the members can agree on. Either you get a new NASA chief, or Congressional direction to change course. Not likely in the latter, and even if Mr. Obama does get reelected, they’ll likely stay this course.

Again, when that disaster known as FY 11 was rolled out, they didn’t dangle carrots to the pro-Constellation crowd. No offers to CxP contractors to become second-source suppliers in an EELV-based strategy, no offers to affected communities of other NASA-related work, NOTHING. If the economy was doing better than it is, there wouldn’t have been the pushback. The Administration thought their proposals would be praised to the skies for being “new, bold, and innovative”, that Congressional and other pushback would be minimimal, and that it would be easy to sell to Congress and the Public. Wrong on all counts. Again, the opposition wasn’t just the GOP saying “Obama bad, therefore we’re against it,” it was bipartisan: Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) was a key critic, and the 2010 Authorization Act was probably written by him and by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX). Shelby, Vitter, Landreau, Feinstein, etc., no doubt had a say, though.

“HLV boils down to the following things:”

The old dartboard approach, also known as “I don’t know the answer, so I’ll throw out a bunch of guesses and hope one is right”.

The answer to the need for an HLV is pretty simple Matt – what funded payloads are there that won’t fit un-fueled on a current U.S. commercial rocket, and what funded programs envision such payloads?

The answer to both questions is currently ZERO, which means the need for the SLS is driven purely by politics. And that is no way to get the most out of our space program and general efforts to expand out into space.

If you’re willing to settle for a politically driven space program, instead of one that is driven by hardware needs, then settle in for many years of disappointment. I won’t settle for that however, nor will many others on this blog, so that certainly is a bright dividing line between you and us.

And please, stop trying to convince us that politicians know what the lift requirements should be for rockets better than NASA and the aerospace industry – it makes you look like a toadie.

this is the most goofy post I have seen from you. Not only does it repeat things which are goofy and label them as fact but then it starts to expand those things to a belief system by a majority of hte Congress. which is not fact.

the one I really love though is this

“5) Pride: A desire to have the biggest, baddest, and most powerful rocket for HSF since the Saturn 5. You may think that’s stupid, but guess what? Congress sure doesn’t””

It is the notion of the right wing (sorry Rand) of the GOP, the base of the party…but it is only their notion and the notion of space porkers. Congress doesnt give a fig…and you will know that when SLS dies in the budget “crisis” that is coming or we are in and a major new crisis is coming

Goofy RGO

I and others already know the arguments made for an HLV. And even if they were valid, there are other more cost effective ways to get one and operate it. I’m not going to reiterate them again because you and others have been told what they are over and over again and you choose not to let it sink in.

“If Dubya had appointed Admiral Steadle as NASA Administratior when O’Keefe left, or if O’Keefe had stayed on, we’d be in a lot better shape than where we are now.
Ah, for once you got something right. Steidle (you didn’t even get his name right) was an early proponent of using existing EELVs for crewed spaceflight. Griffin fired him (Steidle was the first Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems) because of that advocacy as soon as he became administrator.

“Mike Griffin has changed his tune enough that I’m not sure what to make of him.”
It was Griffin who was originally the prime motivator behind the super HLV first as Ares V and he now advocates its reincarnation called SLS. YOU backed his choice of a shuttle derived HLV and cited him as your primary authority. He hasn’t changed his tune, he just hypocritcally contradicted himself the way YOU continually contradict yourself.

You can’t have it both ways Matt. You can’t reasonably state we need a super-HLV because that is what Griffin said and continues to say, and pretend he has reversed his position. Cut the B.S., Matt. Given me an honest noncontradictory answer. Do you have NO SHAME? You need to care less about your pride along with misplaced loyalties and more about doing what is right for your country’s efforts in space to help keep it the leading world power in the 21st century. The sickening hypocrisy of your statements has eroded what little respect I and others here had for you.