# NewsNASA Delivers Heavy Lift Proposal to Congress

#### Sky Captain

##### New member
Yes, but you can't design the demand. (The attempt is called communism and failed). You can't just say "Here we have a 100 ton launcher, fill it".

Yeah that is the problem. Let's make some hardware and then see what mission can we do with it.
Mission goals should come first and then the question what kind of hardware we need to accomplish the mission. when mission defined and hardware recquirements defined then STICK TO THAT. If every new adminstration cancels the previous project and tasks to do something else then it will be only billions of $worth of ppt presentations and some half made prototypes. #### Wood ##### New member "We appreciate NASA's report and look forward to the additional material that was required but not submitted. In the meantime, the production of a heavy-lift rocket and capsule is not optional. It's the law. NASA must use its decades of space know-how and billions of dollars in previous investments to come up with a concept that works. We believe it can be done affordably and efficiently - and, it must be a priority." Oh, wow. Really? They demand experts to write a report on a topic, then do the equivilent of sticking their fingers in their ears and crying "LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" and threaten THE LAW when they're told things they don't like? Ignoring a problem and hoping it just sorts itself out isn't going to work. Why does it seem that the whole world is run by morons? #### Urwumpe ##### Not funny anymore Addon Developer Donator The Shuttle was still pretty economic for its size. It was a large rocket, but NASA paid almost 6 times more per launch when the Saturn V was still around. And twice as much for the tiny Saturn IB. It was a huge improvement, but not as huge as advertised. It is VERY hard to replace the Shuttle. About doing what the law demands of them, why do I now have to think of a classic European inscription... Ὦ ξεῖν', ἀγγέλλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ὅτι τῇδε κείμεθα, τοῖς κείνων ῥήμασι πειθόμενοι. "Stranger, announce to the Spartans that here We lie, having fulfilled their orders." Last edited: #### Ark ##### New member Giving all the money to SpaceX seems faster, more economical, and more effective at the present time than anything NASA can do. It sucks, but it's really the truth. What NASA wants to do can't be done with the money, and what can be done with the money is impossible because of NASA's bureaucratic nonsense and Congressional obligation to give the empire of Shuttle employees something to do. #### T.Neo ##### SA 2010 Soccermaniac Addon Developer But hold on... not to support misadministration here, but these shuttle workers are people, with careers, lives, families. It's only fair that when we suggest axing Congressional stupidity, we allow or discuss options for what to do with this workforce that would be more economically and practically sound to NASA and the US as a whole. #### tblaxland ##### O-F Administrator Administrator Addon Developer Webmaster Also, Congress have just told NASA 'Do it our way' -> http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/01/full-text-of-na.html An interesting comment on that blog post: Congress said: NASA must use its decades of space know-how and billions of dollars in previous investments to come up with a concept that works. We believe it can be done affordably and efficiently - and, it must be a priority. Dennis Wingo said: Ah, little birdies have been chirping that this declarative statement originates from some people that spend a bit too much time listening to those who drank DIRECTly from the koolaid dispenser. :lol: Who is Dennis Wingo? http://www.apogeespacebooks.com/Author_Bios/dennis_wingo.html #### zerofay32 ##### Buckeye One problem that I through into the ring, is NASA and Congress is looking for the next long term program and rocket to suit. The problem, as many have stated, they are designing for so far into the future (for markets that aren't conceivable today) that the HLV will be unsistainable until that nich is cut (if it ever is cut). One solution I propose is to design a new family of lanchers using state-of-the-art tech that utilizes the same componets and/or facilities. Of course, the question is, how far can you push a design until you reach its limits (whether that be cost effectiveness, payload mass, payload volume, or safety/realiability)? #### Sky Captain ##### New member On the other hand, would a shuttle derrived HLV be that bad? The most expensive part of the stack is shuttle itself and it is eliminated in this proposal. IIRC single SRB cost ~40 million, external tank ~10 million, if they come up with cheaper single use modification of SSME (suppose ~20 million$ apiece) it would be ~200 million in hardware costs. Much smaller DeltaIV Heavy has similar price.

I'm wondering why they put a Ares 1 second stage as EDS. It severely limits the fairing diameter. It might be ok for Orion but what about moon lander or some other large payloads? It would make sense to have EDS similar in diameter to main stage to make available maximum possible payload volume.

#### T.Neo

##### SA 2010 Soccermaniac
On the other hand, would a shuttle derrived HLV be that bad? The most expensive part of the stack is shuttle itself and it is eliminated in this proposal. IIRC single SRB cost ~40 million, external tank ~10 million, if they come up with cheaper single use modification of SSME (suppose ~20 million $apiece) it would be ~200 million in hardware costs. Much smaller DeltaIV Heavy has similar price. Which combined with the larger launcher size could lead to a lower cost/kg? If it ends up being as expensive as Delta IV heavy, that is quite a feat and would make it quite a remarkable vehicle... that doesn't stop the launch economics issue. Is$20 million USD per SSME realistic? SSMEs as they are now are $50 million... RS-68 is$14 million.

I'm wondering why they put a Ares 1 second stage as EDS. It severely limits the fairing diameter. It might be ok for Orion but what about moon lander or some other large payloads? It would make sense to have EDS similar in diameter to main stage to make available maximum possible payload volume.

I hope they mean "Ares I second stage derived", because if they're choosing the some ~5.5 meter upper stage, it is complete lunacy.

If it can fit Orion, big deal. You don't need such a large vehicle to launch Orion, and you're not going to send something like Orion outside of LEO without another spacecraft- either a lander, a long-duration habitat, or both.

News Reporter

Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K