NSC (SD-HLLV)

[Khadgars]

I did not see a specific thread dedicated to this design presented by Shannon. I think it is definitely worth discussing as the Commission goes on and we see that their just is not enough funding to support the current Ares I/V architecture. There is no point in building an Ares I if Ares V is not built as well, and the chances of that happening appear to slim to done.

My thoughts on the NSC:
-It gives NASA a graceful way to bow out of Ares I/V
-Maintains all of the current infrastructure and workforce
- Least expensive design for a HLV
- Faster developmental time
- Fully capable of delivering crew and cargo for ISS and Lunar missions
- More sustainable
- Several growth options including 5 Segment SRB as well as J2X upper stage

PDF: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361842main_1...nt%20Final.pdf

To me it seems like the most likely design to actually fly while it uses so much of what we already have at a much cheaper cost. Even though the Altair would need to be down sized a bit, that doesn't mean the missions can not be accomplished or improved upon later down the road. Thoughts?

Edit: Here is a quick little video that was done.

[spacefan]

I did not see a specific thread dedicated to this design presented by Shannon. I think it is definitely worth discussing as the Commission goes on and we see that their just is not enough funding to support the current Ares I/V architecture. There is no point in building an Ares I if Ares V is not built as well, and the chances of that happening appear to dimming quite a bit.

My thoughts on the NSC:

-It gives NASA a graceful way to bow out of Ares I/V

-Maintains all of the current infrastructure and workforce

- Least expensive design for a HLV

- Faster developmental time

- Fully capable of delivering crew and cargo for ISS and Lunar missions

- More sustainable

- Several growth options including 5 Segment SRB as well as J2X upper stage

To me it seems like the most likely design to actually fly while it uses so much of what we already have at a much cheaper cost. Even though the Altair would need to be down sized a bit, that doesn't mean the missions can not be accomplished or improved upon later down the road. Thoughts?

Edit: Here is a quick little video that was done (hope you don't mind me posting this)

I would have to agree with the above. It seem the best use of the money available.

[Khadgars]

I think every one should remember too how important it is for NASA to maintain it's heavy lift capabilities. I'm a fan of Ares I/V, if the funding was their to support it I think it would be the way too go for sure but that architecture just does not fit what is allocated in NASA's budget. The whole system requires increases in funding, yet we are at the point of decreasing budgets, so what is the point of trying to build something we don't have the money to build while at the same time creating enemies out side of the organization?

With the side mounted NSC we get all of the capabilities that NASA needs in one rocket while costing substantially less money to develop and maintain. It doesn't require any real modifications to existing infrastructure and even uses Orbiter avionics. Is it the best design available out there? Negative, but it may just be our last real hope of maintaining America's heavy lift capabilities and salvaging deep space exploration...

[Khadgars]

On a side note, NSC can also be used on conjunction with propellant depots to better facilitate NEO and Mars missions as well. As currently constructed propellant depots would not be needed for lunar missions but using them for NEO or Mars missions makes this launch vehicle that more attractive.

There also may be ways to use a lot of whats been learned from Ares I into the NSC. The 5 segment SRB being developed could also be utilized with the NSC, recovering a lot of the cost of the Ares project so far. We may also be able to learn valuable information with the Ares 1-X launch coming up at the end of summer that could be useful for the NSC, perhaps in regards to LAS. I don't believe in the agrument any more that to much has been done with Ares 1 to cancel it. I actually think the oppisite is true, to much has been done to let it continue.

[Rick]

I think every one should remember too how important it is for NASA to maintain it's heavy lift capabilities. I'm a fan of Ares I/V, if the funding was their to support it I think it would be the way too go for sure but that architecture just does not fit what is allocated in NASA's budget. The whole system requires increases in funding, yet we are at the point of decreasing budgets, so what is the point of trying to build something we don't have the money to build while at the same time creating enemies out side of the organization?

With the side mounted NSC we get all of the capabilities that NASA needs in one rocket while costing substantially less money to develop and maintain. It doesn't require any real modifications to existing infrastructure and even uses Orbiter avionics. Is it the best design available out there? Negative, but it may just be our last real hope of maintaining America's heavy lift capabilities and salvaging deep space exploration...

What you say is true, but if NASA scales down its heavy launcher capability, the mission is scaled down as well. How much smaller would Altair or an equivelent need to be to be launched on a side mounted vehicle?

Curious am I.

[Khadgars]

I do not remember the exact number, but I believe the Altair would be around 28mt. This would throw out the 6 month long missions that were once planned and reduces the size of the landing crew back to 2 but still allows for 14 day sortie missions. Not as grand as we wanted but let’s be real, when the original plans were made for the CxP, NASA designed it's whole architecture around a $150 billion dollar budget over the next 10 years and THAT is simply not going to happen. The way things are now we're looking at some where around $85 billion over the next decade and that's if nothing gets reduced. You can not plan for the future of manned spaceflight by over spending your budget by almost 50%, that is just ridiculous and we will end up with absolutely nothing.

The whole idea of a permanent moon base is out of the question as well, there is just not enough funding unless there is a huge international support and funding to back it up.

One thing to remember, if propellant depots are utilized, the actual size of the Altair can be increased to nearly the same size as envisioned with the behemoth Ares V.

The name of the game now is to be adaptive, don't set your feet in concrete if you're not going to be able to build your house on it. I think the NSC provides this at the cheapest cost while appeasing nearly all the current players involved.

[spacefan]

If you use propellant depots Altair need not be downgraded as missions can be assembled in LEO possiblly using ISS. Personell, cargo and propellent can be launched with commercial carriers such as SpaceX and Orbital, genuine competition will drive down costs, enabling Nasa to concentrate on heavy lift and missions out of LEO.

It would then make sense to Develop a reusable spacecraft for transportation between LEO and lunar orbit and vice versa and also a reuseable lander.

[Rick]

Not a bad idea. If indeed we'd be limited to a two week stay at a time, what's the point? Yes, we would get there, but would the cost justify the means.

If that is the case, just heading to Mars, is a better option to me anyway.

[JimMcDade]

This is fun and all, but the more ambitions Ares I and Ares V are still front and center TFN. Be wary of unsupported assumptions when projecting future events. Steve Shannon and his team did a great job in coming up with their alternative, but SD-HLLV is still not much more than a daydream at this point.

Quote from Steve Cook, the NASA Ares program manager: “The ARES I and V development is the fastest and most prudent path to closing the human spaceflight gap while enabling exploration of the moon and beyond."

A lot of people don't want to hear what Cook says, but his words carry some weight with objective observers (Augustine Commission members?) whose observations are not yet influenced by their personal theories.

Those commission members probably don't assume that Steve Cook is a liar and is implicated in a Bush-Griffin conspiracy to kill astronauts with Ares I. Others assume that Cook and his engineers are just a bunch of incompetents, but I doubt that the commission members would agree with that conclusion either.

The continuing Ares I and Ares V bashing from outside of Project Constellation should not be surprising. What else should be expected from rejected competitors for the largest Project Constellation contracts? It is also quite natural that cryogenics and EELV workers would pounce on Ares I in particular for the sake of self-interest.

I also don't think it is safe to assume that Ares I will be dropped in the event that Ares V is scratched. An Ares I-SD-HLLV fleet is not out of the question. It will not be so easy to justify writing off $3 billion and then turn around and ask for more billions to try again. Congressional critics of the space program and anti-NASA commentators would have a field day with that turn of events. I am not sure that President Obama wants to deal with that fight on top of all the other battles he is facing at the moment. We might as well add that $3 billion to the price tag of any Ares I alternative.

Dr. Ride and Aerospace Corporation (Gary Pullium) independently came to the conclusion that lack of funding- not technical issues- are the root of all problems for the Project Constellation vehicles. We must be careful about taking blog and newspaper accounts as the gospel truth about Ares I and Ares V.

I read and hear multiple media echoing the claims originally made by a few sources (Orlando Sentinel- DirectLauncher advocates- certain EELV fans)- but those are still just claims and they do not rise to the level of incontrovertible evidence. Likewise, I don't claim to be a soothsayer, but a lot of people have more or less looked into their crystal balls and fearlessly predicted the end of Ares I after evaluating nothing more than these unsubstantiated, but very popular claims. It is premature to assume that Ares I is gone at this point. I don't think that the Augustine panel members will be so easy to fool.

[spacefan]

Not a bad idea. If indeed we'd be limited to a two week stay at a time, what's the point? Yes, we would get there, but would the cost justify the means.

If that is the case, just heading to Mars, is a better option to me anyway.

You could consider it an investment, it should be well within our technology to construct a truely reusable spacecraft or two and heavy lift the components for assembly in LEO. Without having to overcome Earths gravity a reusable lunar lander should be very doable. Once these spacecraft are operational you just need to use smaller and cheaper rockets to maintain this transport infrastucture the commercial lauchers in development would seem ideal. An admitedly higher initial cost but considerable savings over the longer term.

The above would develop invaluable experience in deep space operations that would inform the design of any future mars mission.

[Rick]

Jim, I agree. I'm treating this discussion as a hypothetical.

[JimMcDade]

I understand.

I just watched the financial news and it may be a while before NASA gets the kind of funding level that we would all like to see. The nation is currently spending almost twice the amount that it is collecting in taxes. We are running something like $954 billion in the hole this year. We are approaching $12 trillion in accumulated national debt.

It is probably going to be rough going for NASA HSF for a while and just extending the Shuttle program a few flights in addition to the seven now left is not going to help NASA very much, even if that does help preserve some jobs at KSC. NASA is going to have to compete with national health care and other Obama stimulus programs for funding.

[JimMcDade]

A nine year gap? Read:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...t%20Gap%20Seen

[Khadgars]

I understand.

I just watched the financial news and it may be a while before NASA gets the kind of funding level that we would all like to see. The nation is currently spending almost twice the amount that it is collecting in taxes. We are running something like $954 billion in the hole this year. We are approaching $12 trillion in accumulated national debt.

It is probably going to be rough going for NASA HSF for a while and just extending the Shuttle program a few flights in addition to the seven now left is not going to help NASA very much, even if that does help preserve some jobs at KSC. NASA is going to have to compete with national health care and other Obama stimulus programs for funding.

Now you're starting to see the picture. Like I said before in this thread, I AM an Ares I/V supporter. It's one of the most ambitious projects NASA has attempted and I do not subscribe to a lot of the chatter in regards to their technical merits. How ever there is just not enough money for it, Ares V will not be built plain and simple. The current architecture just doesn't work.

Remember too that the Augustine Commission isn't just looking at the different launch vehicles; it is also looking at NASA's mission and the VSE as a whole. The whole idea of a permanent moon base is not in the cards any more and we may very well see a change in the direction of the whole program (IE the flexible path). BUT the number one priority IMHO is keeping our heavy launch capabilities, building an Ares I with out an Ares V does not accomplish this goal while the NSC does in one rocket.

[Rick]

Your last paragraph is what bothers me the most, because it will probably come to pass.

[JimMcDade]

Many of our scientists claim that robots provide more bang for the buck. I guess that I always felt that the entire purpose of robots was to scout out places where humans would later follow. We have a lot of unfinished business on the Moon that will require more or less permanent human presence there. Mars is also waiting for us.

The Apollo lunar surface missions produced a fantastic scientific return in addition to affirming that view that capitalism and democracy were superior to socialism and oppression. The ISS has not come close to matching Hubble Space Telescope's scientific productivity and results. If we are not going to go anywhere other than ISS for the extended stays, then why not drop HSF entirely and go completely robotic after ISS is brought down?

We spent less than eight days exploring the lunar surface and only traveled about 60 miles across the surface. That is not exploration, that's a 15 minute tour. The Moon is a big place and we barely scratched the surface of the near side.

[Khadgars]

Simply because we do not establish a permanent base on the moon does not mean we need to abandon HSF all together.

If you look look at what the flexible path does, it allows for lunar sortie missions and Mars/Venus flybys relatively early. It also allows for landing on Mars' moons and NEO. A lot of valuable information and expertise can be gained from doing this and at the same time pushes the boundaries of human kind in space. How could you not be excited about landing on a moon of Mars? This path doesn't rule out landing on Mars or a permenant base on the moon, but gives us the most bang for the buck with out cementing our feet into an area we can not fund properly.

A permanent moon base if attempted by the United States alone would keep us on the moon for the next 40 years. I as much as the next guy would love to see a permanent moon base but that will only realistically happen with huge international support, and if that happens NASA can still keep part of it's Mars and Venus flybys going.

Lets not forget about lunar global which would allow us to have semi-permanent bases all over the moon. Altair could be modified and stacked together to create mini bases. There are lots of options out there other than a very, very expensive and ultimately resource consuming lunar base.

The key though is to have the heavy lift capacity to accomplish many of these goals with out destroying the budget.

[J.McDonald]

Here's a horrifying prospect for y'all:

Ares-V is cancelled in favour of a two-launch NSC plan. The commonality between NSC and STS allow indefinite Shuttle extension to reduce the 'gap'.
A few months/years into development, NASA find that there's no way in hell that they can launch a crew safely on NSC. Cue the return from the dead of Ares-I and a three-launch mission. Yuk.

[Rick]

Which is exactly why they should leave well enough, alone. (Throw me a bone today, it's my b'day..heh).

[spacefan]

Happy birthday Rick.