NASA Plans to Build Two New Shuttle-derived Launch Vehicles

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">did you quote the wrong statement? I said Manned flight cheaper by NASA but you're talking SDHLV.</font>/i><br /><br />I caught it <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />, but the argument is a little easier to explain (and more pronounced) with the HLV. Manned spaceflight will have the same issues.<br /><br />As long as NASA/Government foots the bill for development of anything (HLV cargo, manned to LEO, space station, ...), commercial companies will have a difficult time competing (and thus raising investment dollars) because they have to amortize their development costs (plus opportunity costs) across actual usage.<br /><br />More in the next post...</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Oops... looks like SpaceX isn't going to make it after all... the banks have forclosed (or insert whatever failure scenario you like here...)</font>/i><br /><br />This is one of the primary arguments that Griffin makes: <i>This</i> (e.g., the SDHLV, space station, <i>fill in your favorite technology</i>) is critical to our mission plans; therefore, the government must insure that it is accomplished.<br /><br />The real issue, IMHO, is whether NASA would really step down if a commercial vendor did show up, especially if the apparent cost (but not actual cost) of the commercial sevice is more than the government cost. As long as there is an appearance of competition with the government, private investors will stay away.<br /><br />What is needed is law that does the following:<br /><ol type="1"><li>Prevent any service for which the government paid more than X% of the development cost (e.g., 50%) from using that technology for commercial services. This would prevent ATK from using its single-stick crew launch vehicle (if funded by NASA) from entering commercial services.<li>If a commercial service becomes available, NASA must use that service even if the cost of that service is more than the government service (within reason).<li>A commercial oversite board is established to insure that NASA follows the rules and to make sure NASA doesn't throw up artificial requirements so that the commercial service does not meet their needs.<br /></li></li></li></ol><br /><br />A good early example might be Bigelow's orbital platform. If he gets it up and operational, will NASA shift any planned experiments from ISS to the Bigelow platform?</i>

 

[starfhury]

Simply, the way I see it is this. NASA is going to do what NASA wants to do. If private industry wants a piece of the pie, they will have to fund it themselves. If they get NASA or governmental funding, they will be no different that Boeing or Lockmart getting the money to do NASA's bidding. This is why SpaceX and Blue Origin should do it out of there own pockets. It'll make them more efficient and produce a cheaper better product. This product NASA would have to use because they'd othewise look like fools wasting billions on more expensive less effective systems. Either way the private sector has to build a better competing system out of there own pockets before NASA will bite and it only makes sense. They have to prove themselves to be better before the system can hope to change. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yree]

NASA's Moon Plans Shift into High Gear<br /><br />By Brian Berger<br />Space News Staff Writer<br /><br />WASHINGTON – NASA is set to begin rolling out the results of a landmark space exploration architecture study that calls for building an Apollo-like astronaut capsule and conducting up to six lunar sorties per year using rocket hardware derived from the space shuttle.<br /><br />Sixty days in the making, the Exploration Systems Architecture Study will go a long way toward defining the approach and the hardware NASA will use to return astronauts to the Moon by 2020, and eventually go on to Mars.<br /><br />That hardware includes the so-called Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and the rockets that will be needed to loft both the CEV and huge amounts of cargo that will be needed to establish a sustainable astronaut presence on the lunar surface.<br /><br />Long before being named NASA administrator this spring, Mike Griffin was on the record saying that he thought the United States ought to take maximum advantage of existing space shuttle hardware and infrastructure in building the new launchers.<br /><br />In public speeches, congressional testimony and interviews since being sworn in, Griffin has made clear that he still believes shuttle-derived launchers are the way to go, not just for the really big Moon-bound cargo payloads but also for the CEV, whose destinations are to include lunar orbit and the international space station.<br /><br />And nothing discovered in the course of the Exploration Systems Architecture Study seems to have dampened that belief.<br /><br />“We have studied this as carefully and ecumenically as we know how to do,” Griffin told Space News in a June 27 interview at NASA Headquarters here. “For the purposes of launching the CEV, while we could probably make anything work, clearly the safest, most cost-effective, highest-reliability path that we see is shuttle-derived.”<br /><br />Chicago-based Boeing and Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin have been pushing var

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">NASA's Moon Plans Shift into High Gear</font>/i><br /><br />Fairly similar to what we have already heard, but the data points that caught my eye were:<br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">NASA ... laid out a lunar exploration architecture that includes as many as six flights a year to the Moon.</font>/i><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">Both the CEV launcher and the heavy-lifter would be shuttle-derived and cost about $3 billion a year once in service.</font>/i><br /><br />Hmm... six flights a year to the moon would cost less than six shuttle flights to LEO.<br /><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">estimated development costs for a human-rated CEV launch vehicle based on the shuttle solid rocket booster at $1 billion to $1.5 billion, a figure that does not include the CEV itself.</font>/i><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">“Probably NASA could spend $200 [million] to $300 million a year and this thing could be sitting on the pad by 2010 and ready to put people on top,”</font>/i><br /><br />OK, $250 million a year for 4-5 years to develop the single-stick booster. Extra money for the CEV. Where is the money for this big new booster going to come from? And how long will it take to develop?</i></i></i></i></i>

 

[spacester]

I'm not a budget wonk, but I seem to recall talk from Griffin of massive savings to be had in restructuring ISS science.<br /><br />The international partners want to do lots of science on ISS. NASA? Well, not so much.<br /><br />But I'm guessing here . . . it seems like there was another area Griffin was finding savings in as well . . .<br /><br />At any rate, my understanding is that SDHLV development starts right away. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Develop the CEV first then the booster??? What good is a CEV with no booster?</font>/i><br /><br />I think the "booster" is the SDHLV.<br /><br />2005-2010:<br /><ul type="square"><li> CEV LEO capsule -- design, build, launch<li> SRB-derived booster -- design, build, launch<li> SDHLV -- design<li> Fly shuttle to complete ISS<br /></li></li></li></li></ul><br />2010 -- 201?<br /><ul type="square"><li> Enhanced Lunar-capable CEV capsule -- design, build, launch<li> SDHLV -- build, launch<li> Fly first-gen CEV on single stick to ISS<br /></li></li></li></ul></i>

 

[wvbraun]

That sounds plausible...

 

[henryhallam]

s_g do you have any more insider details on the new plans for the inline SDHLV that you can tell us?

 

[wvbraun]

Any idea how much that would cost? Certainly not more than a billion?<br /><br />One more question: some time back you told us that you were working on some kind of secret project, exciting stuff. Was it the SDHLV or something else? When will you be allowed to tell us?

 

[wvbraun]

<br />I was referring to the VAB and pad mods only. What does MLP stand for? Is it the service tower?