NASA Borrowing From Shuttle and Ares I

"Engineers and managers at NASA are
sure to change their new reference vehicle
designs for the government’s next heavy-lift
and human-spaceflight vehicles, because
they’re already saying they don’t have
enough money to carry them out. But key
senators are insisting that they do.

Congress and President Barack Obama
authorized $6.9 billion over the next three
years to develop a new heavy-lift space
launch system (SLS), and another $3.92
billion for a multipurpose crew vehicle
(MPCV). They also set a Dec. 31, 2016,
deadline for “operational capability.” NASA
says the funding won’t cover it."

See:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...&headline=NASA
BorrowingFromShuttleandAresI&channel=awst


Here we go again..........

Hmm, having trouble getting that link to work, lessee if this one
works better:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...&channel=space

In article
tatelephone,
says...

More on that he
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/0...v-cost-in.html

NASA looks like it's dropped the larger diameter (Ares V) LOX/hydrogen
tank from its plans, yet the design still has the five segment SRB's and
J2-X as part of its design. This design also calls for five SSME's in
the first stage. This is a recipe for disaster as it will still cost
far too much to develop and fly.

Congress has given NASA a second chance to come up with an affordable
shuttle derived HLV and it's blowing it yet again. :-P

Jeff
--
"Had Constellation actually been focused on building an Earth-Moon
transportation system, it might have survived. The decision to have it
first build a costly and superfluous Earth-to-orbit transportation
system (Ares I) was a fatal mistake.", Henry Spencer 1/2/2011

On 1/19/2011 8:40 AM, wrote:
"Engineers and managers at NASA are
sure to change their new reference vehicle
designs for the government’s next heavy-lift
and human-spaceflight vehicles, because
they’re already saying they don’t have
enough money to carry them out. But key
senators are insisting that they do.

More on that he
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/0...v-cost-in.html

Pat

Is Jupiter (Direct) still the best way to go for NASA?
Or are there better options now?

In article 0e187a08-2fc7-4a02-a0fa-
,
says...

Is Jupiter (Direct) still the best way to go for NASA?
Or are there better options now?

My personal opinion is that NASA need not develop any new HLV for itself
and should stick to using existing launch vehicles. To make up for the
lack of an HLV, they ought to invest in developing in orbit storage and
refueling of LOX and LH2.

Direct is still the best (cheapest) option for a NASA HLV, but NASA
seems to be pitching an HLV that's more expensive than Direct. The HLV
they're pitching has the five segment SRB's (direct uses the shuttle's
existing 4-segment SRB's), five SSME's in the first stage (Direct would
use 3 or 4, depending on the mission), and an upper stage which would
use the J2-X (Direct would use existing RL-10 engines).

So, the vehicle NASA is pitching requires both development of the 5
segment SRB's and the J2-X, both of which will add billions to the
development costs of an HLV. This is not Direct.

Jeff
--
"Had Constellation actually been focused on building an Earth-Moon
transportation system, it might have survived. The decision to have it
first build a costly and superfluous Earth-to-orbit transportation
system (Ares I) was a fatal mistake.", Henry Spencer 1/2/2011