NASA changing opinion on the Direct HLV launcher.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 22:29:32 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

I think they're simply biting the bullet to put an end to the chicken
vs. egg syndrome. "We'd build a big payload if we had a big rocket"
versus "we'd build a big rocket if we had a big payload." They're
assuming funding for an actual payload will come along later. "If you
build it, they will come." In the meantime, there's nothing wrong with
flying an Orion and an MPLM on the same flight... we're still going to
be short on uplift to the ISS, even if Dragon and Cygnus meet their
goals (big if.)

Does this sound a lot like the Shuttle?

No. Shuttle was intended to handle an existing market of payloads
launched on Atlas, Delta and Titan, which would then be phased-out
(Atlas and Delta indeed were, only to be put back into production.)
There was already a market for Shuttle launches (just not enough to
justify the high-cost Shuttle.) This was in the pre-Ariane era,
remember. The US was launching the rest of the free world's payloads,
too.

But the government isn't forcing anyone else to use SD-HLV, which has
the objective of enabling future BEO exploration (whether SD-HLV is
the right way to do so is another matter). However, I wouldn't be at
all surprised if the DoD does express interest in a launch or two once
SD-HLV moves from paper to real world.

Brian