…or just resting? Bill Nelson is trying to resuscitate heavy lift. As many commenters point out, it makes no sense, and is fiscal madness. And he’s probably doomed to failure.
[Update a few minutes later]
Particularly idiotic is Nelson’s attempts to tie continued Ares development to national security, for at least two reasons: the DoD has no need for solids of that diameter and if it did, there would be cheaper ways to get it. Not to mention that if it’s for national security, the money should come out of the Pentagon’s budget, not NASA.
Is there a downside to just having a go at it from Nelson’s perspective? If not, I’d expect him to keep pushing the idea for a while.
Probably not, other than looking like a fool. But he’s got to be used to that after all these years. I was hoping that Paul Damphousse would be able to rein him in a little better.
At least an HLV would serve a useful purpose, as opposed to the totally unnecessary Orion lifeboat.
At least an HLV would serve a useful purpose, as opposed to the totally unnecessary Orion lifeboat.
HLV could serve a useful purpose if there is a payload for it to carry. Since there are no such payloads and no funding to build them, it’s hard to see how HLV does anything but divert resources that could be better spent elsewhere, such as propellant depot technology development, closed-loop life support technology development, etc.
Cecil,
The problem is that the “useful purposes” for an HLV only start happening 10+ years from now. An HLV without a beyond earth orbit vehicle, EDS’s and other mission hardware is just a jobs program soaking up billions of dollars per year in fixed cost. The Orion CRV does serve a useful purpose–one a political purpose of getting LM and Colorado back on the President’s side, but two it allows you to keep the possibility of a government backup to commercial space without actually competing with commercial space unless they drop the ball. It gives you the insurance policy without actually directly competing with them right away.
To me, that’s a lot better than spending another $20B on a HLV and a capsule to go on it without any of the other systems needed to make it useful. But your mileage apparently varies.
~Jon
Rand,
Actually it does make sense from a political perspective.
The Senators know like everyone else space policy changes with administrations. If they able to keep the Ares I team together there is a chance the next administration will restore it as key part of their Post Obama “rebuilding” of NASA and American leadership in space. This would be one way to keep the core elements of constellation safe until then, especially since the Orion still survives as a CRV.
Hi All,
As a side note, development of the Ares I systems is continuing under the 2010 budget so in that sense its definitely kicking 🙂
http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123200959
418th FLTS breaks record with heaviest airdrop
[[[“The test is designed to collect data and to see how the parachutes react to different weights,” said Ellis Hines, 418th FLTS, C-17 Ares project manager. “Once the entire testing is completed, eventually these parachutes will be attached to the Ares I boosters.”]]]
At least an HLV would serve a useful purpose,
As a pay off to keep NASA out of the launch business? Considering NASAs track record, one can not really dispute that if it did actually eventually get developed, it would be too expensive and otherwise too payload constraining to generally use.
Now if the the HLV R&D budget could somehow be shifted to SLV R&D and technology development – that would serve a useful purpose.
How about doing actual launcher R&D rather than spending forever just to add another segment to the solids? Whole liquid engines have been developed from scratch in less time than this.
Also the future of civilian space flight should not include non-throttleable solids. Bad enough the Shuttle had to use them as a cost saving measure.
I look at the question of an HLLV from an economic standpoint – what is the trade-off of spending $X Billion to design a larger launcher, when you could spend the same $X Billion to launch with existing launchers. I know there are trade-offs for one-piece vs multiple-pieces, but we should be in the ballpark.
– – – – – – – – – – –
Does it take more $$$ to launch a program (ISS, Asteroid Mission, Mars Visitation, etc.) on existing launchers than it would take to design, test, build and launch using an HLLV?
– – – – – – – – – – –
If so, then you should pursue an HLLV. Otherwise, the economics of a new HLLV are questionable.
For instance, Ares V can put 350,000 lb in LEO. Let’s say Delta IV Heavy is 50,000 lb to LEO, and their last published price was ~$250M. It would take seven (7) launches with Delta IV to equal an Ares V upmass, and cost $1.75B. If you do the math with Falcon 9 Heavy, it’s going to get even cheaper (70,000 lb & ~$150M/launch).
Someone want to do the math for the Constellation program cost & gross upmass?
The ISS has showed us what we can do with modular construction, and regardless the size of the launcher, everything we build in space will end up being modular anyways. Every time we design and build the next “Tallest Building”, we don’t build bigger trucks to deliver the material – we just make more deliveries. Same concept.
Does anyone else want to propose a formula?