Political Commentary, Space

The Shuttle Cult

16 Comments

As Clark notes, the phrase “low-cost SDLV” is an oxymoron. It’s only low cost compared to Ares. Any solution that involves preserving the Shuttle infrastructure is going to be intrinsically high cost. Half a billion dollars per flight (and I’ll bet that doesn’t amortize development) is a lot of money. We’ll never open up space that way. The time for a Shuttle-derived vehicle was twenty years ago, when we were still operating the Shuttle and building the station. It’s an anachronism today.

16 thoughts on “The Shuttle Cult”

  1. I’m still unclear as to what exactly we’d be launching on these things, since it seems like their development would once again eat up all tech budgets and precursor missions.

    But hey, we get to keep our pretty launches!

  2. Didn’t these people get the memo? The Shuttle was terminated. As were the components used in it.

    SSME only works on a parallel staged vehicle since it cannot startup in mid flight. It is also too expensive to use in a non reusable vehicle. I do think you could design a cheaper expendable staged combustion engine. However when you finished the design process you wouldn’t be looking at an SSME anymore.

    The segmented solid rocket engines were a political compromise and have no place in today’s human launch vehicles. These solid rocket engines were responsible for the Challenger shuttle disaster. If you use solids in a stage, you have no abort capability for that stage. You cannot reduce costs much further by reusability either. The complexity, and expense, in a solid is in the fuel itself which is burned up during launch. They should not be used in a human launch vehicle again.

    An EELV heavy has about the same payload as the Shuttle at a lower price. It would be better to use part of the billions mentioned in this study to fund Atlas V Heavy, a common Atlas V/Delta IV upper stage like ACES, plus the necessary modifications for human launch. The rest could be used to fund actual missions. This way you would have cheap R&D costs, cheaper flight costs, and launcher redundancy.

  3. Yepper, I have absolute confidence that the HLV plan entrenched in the new Obama NASA budget will cost much less than sidemount SDHLV! They better hurry if it is to be ready in time for that promised 2025 asteroid mission.

    Imagine the scheduling genius it took to combine expanded use of the ISS with development of a clean sheet HLV rocket post-2016. Where will the money come from? I have no worries, after all Bolden has promised “game changing” new technology that will alter everything!

    I can hardly wait for the unicorn-fart/pixie-dust Obama HLV!

    Ahem…

    All snark aside, HLV has always seemed to me one of those ‘nice to have’ rather than must have items for deep space exploration. Yet NASA, even under the new Obama plan seems unwilling to ever let it go.

    So the question then becomes, if NASA is going to get an HLV, which is the least costly of all the options? A completely expendable cargo-only sidemount SDHLV looks to fill that option best to me.

  4. Who says it would be clean sheet? EELV Phase 1 would probably be the least expensive HLV. Given that you’ll want an EDS anyway, it’s essentially free. But as you say we don’t need an HLV.

  5. Who says clean sheet? Why NASA does. It’s an inescapable conclusion from the statements NASA has made recently.

    NASA plans to spend three billion dollars over the next five years on HLV “research and development”, which then leads to a “decision” in 2015 on which path to pursue for the HLV which is supposed to be used for the 2025 asteroid mission.

    I don’t see how anyone could see anything BUT a clean sheet HLV emerging from such a process.

  6. I don’t see how anyone could see anything BUT a clean sheet HLV emerging from such a process.

    I can see absolutely nothing coming from it. That might be the best outcome…

  7. Godzilla said: I do think you could design a cheaper expendable staged combustion engine. However when you finished the design process you wouldn’t be looking at an SSME anymore.

    I think it’s called “Merlin”. Except possibly for the “expendable” part.

  9. Shuttle derived Hevy Launch Vehikle is the greatest concept ever! Together with Ares I (which has already flown!) and Ares 5, America will reclaim oter spase once more!!!!!!!1111one1one1!
    Falcon 9 and Atlas are toy rockets. Go Ares!!

    Press to MECO America!

  11. “SSME only works on a parallel staged vehicle since it cannot startup in mid flight.”

    That’s the first I’ve heard of this. I know it can’t be *re*-started. But what prevents it being started in flight?

  14. Godzilla wrote:
    “These solid rocket engines were responsible for the Challenger shuttle disaster”

    Actually, I thought it was NASA management that caused the accident, they were warned repeatedly to not launch when it was cold and NASA management gave the order to launch anyway.

    Brad wrote:
    “NASA plans to spend three billion dollars over the next five years on HLV “research and development”, which then leads to a “decision” in 2015 ”

    Actually the decision must be made BEFORE 2015, as Administrator Bolden expressly pointed out in a congressional subcommittee hearing. Bolden said he asked the President to “challenge me” with a design BEFORE 2015.

  15. Vladislaw, forget it. They failed to communicate that when they had the chance and now it is accepted “fact” that Obama will delay heavy lift until 2015. No amount of denials or restatement will change that fact in the minds of those against the FY11 budget – they have already made up their mind.

  16. Vladislaw

    “Actually the decision must be made BEFORE 2015, as Administrator Bolden expressly pointed out in a congressional subcommittee hearing. Bolden said he asked the President to “challenge me” with a design BEFORE 2015.”

    Considering how meaninglessly vague that Bolden recitation is, please provide a link to the evidence (which hearing? when?) so I can judge the Bolden statement and it’s context for myself.

    I have tried to be very diligent in uncovering the new Obama/Bolden policy, whether it is NASA documents or congressional hearings. And I have never heard of the meaning you ascribe to anything Bolden has said to anyone in public.

    Trent

    How unserious. Poisoning the well? Is that your best?

Comments are closed.