New heavy lifter?

Is there a good place (book, Website, etc.) offering a balanced analysis of the
different approaches to heavy lift (above the EELV Heavy classes) and the pro
and con concerning the need for such a vehicle?

Thanks,


Matt Bille
)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR

MattWriter wrote:

Is there a good place (book, Website, etc.) offering a balanced analysis of the
different approaches to heavy lift (above the EELV Heavy classes) and the pro
and con concerning the need for such a vehicle?\

Not that I know of. I'm working on a long piece for The New Atlantis on
that subject (among others), but I don't know if you'll consider it a
"balanced analysis." Jeff Foust had an article about it at The Space
Review a couple months ago.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/146/1

Rand Simberg wrote:

MattWriter wrote:

Is there a good place (book, Website, etc.) offering a balanced analysis
of the different approaches to heavy lift (above the EELV Heavy classes)
and the pro and con concerning the need for such a vehicle?\

Not that I know of. I'm working on a long piece for The New Atlantis on
that subject (among others), but I don't know if you'll consider it a
"balanced analysis." Jeff Foust had an article about it at The Space
Review a couple months ago.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/146/1

I read this article, and Jeff Foust made a good case why a HLV would
be expensive. He did not, however, tell us, how much his proposed
alternative (tank depot and other orbital infrastructure) would
cost. Especially considering the ISS expierience.

I guess I am not that impartial either...

Robert Kitzmueller

Robert Kitzmueller wrote:


http://www.thespacereview.com/article/146/1


I read this article, and Jeff Foust made a good case why a HLV would
be expensive. He did not, however, tell us, how much his proposed
alternative (tank depot and other orbital infrastructure) would
cost. Especially considering the ISS expierience.

ISS experience should have little relevance. Much of the ISS problem
was due to political constraints. If we develop decent EVA equipment,
and have affordable access to orbit, building orbital infrastructure
shouldn't be that big a deal. And if we don't have those things, the
vision is doomed to failure anyway.

Rand Simberg wrote:

Robert Kitzmueller wrote:


http://www.thespacereview.com/article/146/1


I read this article, and Jeff Foust made a good case why a HLV would
be expensive. He did not, however, tell us, how much his proposed
alternative (tank depot and other orbital infrastructure) would
cost. Especially considering the ISS expierience.

ISS experience should have little relevance.

Less than Saturn V?

Much of the ISS problem
was due to political constraints. If we develop decent EVA equipment,

How much would cost this, assuming NASA would have to do this?
(Even if NASA would not do it inhouse, NASA would least be responsible
for the oversight of it all.)

and have affordable access to orbit,

How affordable? Delta 4 Heavy like? Or ten times cheaper? Where is
Your limit for affordable?

building orbital infrastructure
shouldn't be that big a deal. And if we don't have those things, the
vision is doomed to failure anyway.

Well, the US can certainly afford to send men to the moon Apollo-style.
Even if it would not be cheap this way. You could do so in the 60s, and
the GNP increased a lot in the meantime.

Trying another way could be cheaper or it could be a lot more expensive.
And I do not believe that NASA in the current environment, in which it
gets more money for failure and nothing for success, where noones career
really depends on success, will do anything cheap. Neither big HLV nor
orbital infrastrucure.

I still like big rockets, though...

Robert Kitzmueller

Robert Kitzmueller wrote:

ISS experience should have little relevance.


Less than Saturn V?

They're both inapplicable. We didn't build Saturn because it was the
best way to establish a sustainable lunar exploration program. We did
it because we were in a hurry, had money to burn, and wanted the
lowest-risk approach. That was then, this is now, and we know a lot
more about how to do it.

Much of the ISS problem
was due to political constraints. If we develop decent EVA equipment,


How much would cost this, assuming NASA would have to do this?

I don't know, but certainly a lot less than a heavy lifter.

(Even if NASA would not do it inhouse, NASA would least be responsible
for the oversight of it all.)


and have affordable access to orbit,


How affordable? Delta 4 Heavy like? Or ten times cheaper? Where is
Your limit for affordable?

Much less than any existing vehicle.


building orbital infrastructure
shouldn't be that big a deal. And if we don't have those things, the
vision is doomed to failure anyway.


Well, the US can certainly afford to send men to the moon Apollo-style.
Even if it would not be cheap this way. You could do so in the 60s, and
the GNP increased a lot in the meantime.

We can, but we won't (at least I hope not).

I still like big rockets, though...

Yes, many people do, and at bottom that's really the only reason to
build them. We certainly won't get a sustainable program from them
(particularly since, like the Shuttle we'd have another fragile
monoculture, so that if we had to shut down the heavy lifter, we'd be
dead in the water, as we are now). We need much more diversity and
resiliency in our space infrastructure. Dependence on heavy lift
(particularly a single vehicle type, and who thinks we can afford two?)
yields a fragile, and brittle one.

Rand Simberg wrote:

Robert Kitzmueller wrote:
Much of the ISS problem
was due to political constraints. If we develop decent EVA equipment,


How much would cost this, assuming NASA would have to do this?

I don't know, but certainly a lot less than a heavy lifter.

Each single piece of eqipment would not cost that much. A big orbital
infrastrucure would need a lot pieces of equipment, of a lot of different
types. The costs add up.

How affordable? Delta 4 Heavy like? Or ten times cheaper? Where is
Your limit for affordable?

Much less than any existing vehicle.

Should the US wait until CATS becomes available?

building orbital infrastructure
shouldn't be that big a deal. And if we don't have those things, the
vision is doomed to failure anyway.


Well, the US can certainly afford to send men to the moon Apollo-style.
Even if it would not be cheap this way. You could do so in the 60s, and
the GNP increased a lot in the meantime.

We can, but we won't (at least I hope not).

We will see when NASA presents any mission architecture. If they act
as they did in the past, every center will include its pet project to
this. (Meaning: both HLV and tankfarm would be built...)

I still like big rockets, though...

Yes, many people do, and at bottom that's really the only reason to
build them.

There is at least one more reason: I can compare the cost per kg to
orbit to other existing launchers, and then decide if the launcher
is cheap or expensive. What would You compare the orbital tankfarm
too, if ISS is no applicable example?

We certainly won't get a sustainable program from them
(particularly since, like the Shuttle we'd have another fragile
monoculture, so that if we had to shut down the heavy lifter, we'd be
dead in the water, as we are now).

Could not someone (like congress) turn this argument around: If too
much infrastructure is needed before flights to the moon can commence,
would this not mean the US is commited to spend much money even if
the program is no longer desired? And would not hurt this view the chance
of getting the program approved?

We need much more diversity and
resiliency in our space infrastructure. Dependence on heavy lift
(particularly a single vehicle type, and who thinks we can afford two?)
yields a fragile, and brittle one.

I think You could afford two, but there is about no chance that NASA
will get two. IMNSHO

The best way I see would be to use something which can be used for
commercial applications as well, like super-heavy Delta 4. I am not
sure how heavy EELV can become before major investments like new pads
etc. would become necessary, or how small capsule plus lander plus
TLI-stage could be made, or articles like base modules. (I am also not
sure how small the crew could become before it becomes to small: Must
every astronaut be able to land on the moon, or should scientists be
ferried by an pilot, making the capsule double the size.)

Robert Kitzmueller

Robert Kitzmueller wrote:

Should the US wait until CATS becomes available?

For the human exploration? I'd say so.

I still like big rockets, though...

Yes, many people do, and at bottom that's really the only reason to
build them.


There is at least one more reason: I can compare the cost per kg to
orbit to other existing launchers, and then decide if the launcher
is cheap or expensive. What would You compare the orbital tankfarm
too, if ISS is no applicable example?

I don't understand your question.

Could not someone (like congress) turn this argument around: If too
much infrastructure is needed before flights to the moon can commence,
would this not mean the US is commited to spend much money even if
the program is no longer desired? And would not hurt this view the chance
of getting the program approved?

You don't think that heavy lift is an infrastructure?

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Robert Kitzmueller wrote:

Should the US wait until CATS becomes available?

For the human exploration? I'd say so.

That doesn't help space development if we never get CATS.

:/

Dave O'Neill wrote:

Should the US wait until CATS becomes available?

For the human exploration? I'd say so.


That doesn't help space development if we never get CATS.

Yes.

What's your point? Space development will never happen if we can't
afford to get into space. The inability to recognize this, and trying
to pretend it's not an issue, is the biggest problem with current
policy, and it's not a problem that will be solved by nostalgia over
Apollo and Saturn Vs.