Nothing here about the new proposed launch stack?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bdewoody

Guest
I am surprised that two days after seeing the new proposed launch stack there are no threads going. Putting liquid rocket motors from the shuttle on the bottom of an external tank with the strap on solid boosters and Orion sitting on top seems easy to do but would it work?
 
R

rockett

Guest
bdewoody":2o1j0k8k said:
I am surprised that two days after seeing the new proposed launch stack there are no threads going. Putting liquid rocket motors from the shuttle on the bottom of an external tank with the strap on solid boosters and Orion sitting on top seems easy to do but would it work?
You mean Direct v3? That's old news. Only thing different is that it looks like NASA is going to build something close if the Senate bill passes.

http://www.directlauncher.com/
 
S

sftommy

Guest
The HEFT2 Report delineates the most practical launch vehicle development path of any proposal out there. The argument presented would seem to have little anyone could seriously argue about, except of course Mr. Griffin. It's not going to appear perfect to anyone but it appears to be doable.

It also shows NASA has been thinking since February. All of Congress's whining for a plan would appear to be met by this. The timing of the reports delivery to Bolden and Garver explains her acceptance.

Will the House Science Committee move forward with it?
What does Bart Gordon think?
 
J

James_Bull

Guest
Seems like a good plan. I dont think we'll need something like this till the 2020's so plenty of time to spread out the cost. This path has the added benifit that the infrastructure and workers are well used to working with most of the parts.
What sort of payload is it capable of lifting to LEO? Looks like it would be capable of 100mT+
 
E

edkyle99

Guest
bdewoody":35dvw02i said:
I am surprised that two days after seeing the new proposed launch stack there are no threads going. Putting liquid rocket motors from the shuttle on the bottom of an external tank with the strap on solid boosters and Orion sitting on top seems easy to do but would it work?
HEFT 2 recommends five-segment solids plus five SSME booster that will only fly nine times in 21 years at a total cost of about $55 billion. That's more than $6 billion per launch, just for the rocket! Adding the cryogenic upper stage would push the average up to $6.5 billion per launch!

*And this does not include the cost of the ground infrastructure! *Ground infrastructure adds another $18 billion to the total, pushing the per-HLV launch cost up to - are you ready? - *$8.5 billion per launch*!

NASA needs a better mission requiring more launches if it wants to justify the cost. NEOs don't provide enough mission. The Moon, on the other hand, is right there, looking over our shoulders.

- Ed Kyle
 
S

sftommy

Guest
Going through the HEFT again I notice there's no Bigelow inflatable types planned, maybe a small section on the habitat but not at all like what Bigelow's doing. The HEFT plan would also seem to take longer to achieve certain milestones than a fully funded commercial plan ought to.

Hard to imagine a 20 year NASA plan not being derailed along the way with some wayward political wind, but then the ISS did get built.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts