What if they built a HLLV and nobody came?

[halman]

no_way,<br /><br />Why is it that people have to assume that Heavy Lift is only going to be around for a few years? The launches that I outlined would cover a span of at least 20 years, and possibly more. We must realize that a rocket could be in the inventory for at least 30 years, and maybe more.<br /><br />The amount spent on space research and manned space exploration is a fraction of one percent of the U. S. federal budget. There is no reason that it could not be substanially more, if expenditures on the military, for instance, were cut back.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[skywalker01]

If the US is serious about supporting the MtM plan as outlined in the Planetary Report then it appears obvious that the SDHLV is going to be around for quite a while.<br /><br />For those of you who haven't read it, the Planetary Report contains 4 basic missions that would all require the SDHLV; the return to the Moon to stay, outward to SEL-2 as a place to base the James Webb Space Telescope and as a staging area to operate from, manned flights to asteroids (leaving from SEL-2), and finally, on to Mars (also leaving from SEL-2).<br /><br />I don't know about the rest of you but it sounds like a great plan to me. And it is a plan that will keep the SDHLV busy for many years.<br /><br />Looking beyond this basic plan a bit, even with launch costs down in the $1750/lb range using the SDHLV, that is still a lot of money and I would like to see some workable ideas based on existing technology that have the ability of getting launch costs down to the $100/lb range. <br />If the MtM plan sounds good to you, imagine the flight rate and activity level we could afford for the Moon, SEL-2, the asteroids and Mars with launch costs at $100/lb.<br /><br />

 

[halman]

skywalker01,<br /><br />What does 'SEL-2' mean? I believe that it is good practice to spell out an abbreviation before using it, to avoid confusion. At least, that is what they taught me in school. So many abbreviations and acronyms get tossed around on these forums that it can be hard to follow a discussion if one is not up to speed on what various abbreviations mean.<br /><br />By the way, good post! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[strandedonearth]

SEL-2 = LaGrange point L-2?<br /><br />$100/lb? I'm not sure that would even cover propellant costs. That sort of cost can probably only be reached with a space elevator.

 

[skywalker01]

<<What does 'SEL-2' mean? >><br /><br />Sorry about that.<br /><br />SEL stands for Sun-Earth Largrange point. The dash 2 means point number 2 of 5. The Lagrange points are points of gravitational balance that occur between any two planetary bodies that are in orbit around each other.<br />SEL-2 is a point about 1 million miles out from the Earth, 180 degrees away from the Sun.<br /><br />Another example of a Lagrange point is an Earth-Moon Lagrange point such as EML-5, also known as L-5, which was where O'Neill wanted to build the first Space Colony.<br />Another fairly well known example are the leading and trailing Trojan Asteroids. These are asteroids that are 60 degrees ahead of and 60 degrees behind Jupiter in its orbit around the Sun, also known as the SJL-4 and SJL-5.<br /><br />In any case, the fact that Griffin wants to use SEL-2 as the location for the James Webb Space Telescope and as a staging area for manned flights to Near Earth Objects (asteroids) and after that to Mars (and all of that using Lunar supplied LOX) excites me to the point it has me jumping up and down and crawling out of my skin!!!!!<br />This is not going to be a flags and footprints program.<br />We are going to become a space faring species with a Moon Base that mines Lunar Oxygen and who knows what else plus a Deep Space Space Station (maybe only man tended) at SEL-2, plus a space telescope big enough to see planets around other stars, plus manned trips to asteriods and then Mars!!!!!<br />How incredibly fantastic is that?<br />And I don't understand why everyone on this message board isn't jumping up and down and going nuts like I am!!!!!!!!!!!<br />

 

[skywalker01]

<<$100/lb? I'm not sure that would even cover propellant costs. That sort of cost can probably only be reached with a space elevator. >><br /><br />Off hand I have read about three methods that have the potential of getting launch costs that low.<br />1) the space elevator that you mentioned (not buildable with currently available materials)<br />2) the Earth Orbiting Elevator which can be built with existing graphite fibers http://www.affordablespaceflight.com<br />3) some type of ground accelerator launched ramjet-rocket powered reusable first stage launch vehicle<br />4) a combination system made up of ideas 2 and 3<br /><br />I suspect there are others but these are ones I have looked into and done a little number crunching on.<br />So yes, I do believe that $100/lb to LEO is possible but it takes looking a little beyond the current way of doing things.

 

[halman]

skywalker01,<br /><br />I had a hunch that you were referring to a Solar-Earth Largrange point. That location might also be a good place for industrial space stations, because of the uninterupted sunlight.<br /><br />Yes, Griffen seems to be the guy with The Right Stuff for leading NASA out of the doldrums. The politicos are perhaps realizing that this in not an airline, to be managed by accountants and Business Administration types. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[skywalker01]

Thanks for the reply. I was beginning to think I was the only one who was excited about these changes.<br /><br /><<Yes, Griffen seems to be the guy with The Right Stuff for leading NASA out of the doldrums. The politicos are perhaps realizing that this in not an airline, to be managed by accountants and Business Administration types. />><br /><br />Yes!!!

 

[halman]

skywalker01,<br /><br />Having been a fan of space flight since the first Gemini mission, I have grown rather cynical about the United States space program. Unfortunately, irregardless of who is heading NASA, it is Congress which sets the agencies budget. This has resulted in innumerable setbacks and cancelations of programs, as well as reduced capabilities and objectives.<br /><br />Personally, I don't see any way that we are going to get back to the Moon unless Congress bugrudges the future a bit more money. Trying to work within the current budget levels will stretch things out to the point that infrastructure becomes obsolete before the program is finished with it, (ala the shuttle!) We have been waiting for over two years to see a plan for the Crew Expedition Vehicle, and we still don't know what is going to launch it.<br /><br />Until some new hardware is being delivered to the Cape, I am going to remain pessimistic about the space program, because I have been let down very badly several times before. I am also going to keep writing letters to my Congress people, as well as talking about space whenever I get the chance, and even sometimes when I don't. To me, this IS the future, for our economy, our job market, our environment. The shortsighted fools running this country seem to think that we can go on being great forever, without having to reinvest some of the wealth that past investments have created.<br /><br />Ah, excuse me, I do tend to rant on occaison!<br /><br />I am happy, but not yet excited. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[paleo]

There's a reality that space keeners need to address. It's the environment and the restrictions it's going to place on non-essential activites (such as puting multi-millionaires into space).<br /><br /> The citizens of the EU, Canada, etc. aren't going to be thrilled with moving toward more efficient and cleaner energy use and then allow an individual to 'get his thrill' using up the annual energy equivalent of 'x' number of automobiles.<br /><br /> It will be a hard sell to put 'x' billions of taxpayers dollars into wind, solar energy and so on and then sell those same taxpayers on large rockets (public or private) puting payloads into space that are not science related or have tangible technological benefit.<br /><br /> An HLLV will have to be approved on it's own merits. One of those will be energy use. Not just more bang for the buck but more energy efficiency for a kilo of payload. The 'space tourist' proposals are tangents groping at trying to justify the production of an HLLV.