Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
Ed Kyle
"http://www.space.com/news/050810_dod_launcher.html"
Story says that the Air Force says OK to NASA
developing the SRB Stick for human spaceflight
missions in the 25-30 metric ton class. NASA,
in return, agrees to use EELVs for all payloads
in the 5-20 metric ton class, including ISS
resupply missions. (No word on where the
20-25 tonne payloads will go).
Most strikingly, the letter also says that NASA
is agreeing to consider phasing out Delta 2 in
favor of EELV. This means that long-running
Thor-Delta, probably the world's most reliable
active launch vehicle - the launcher that has
boosted all of NASA's recent Mars missions - is
in danger of being abandoned. The alternative
launchers cost more than Delta 2, so giving up
Delta 2 means fewer, costlier missions - unless
SpaceX succeeds in developing its proposed
Delta 2 class launcher.
- Ed Kyle
Brian Thorn
>Most strikingly, the letter also says that NASA
>is agreeing to consider phasing out Delta 2 in
>favor of EELV. This means that long-running
>Thor-Delta, probably the world's most reliable
>active launch vehicle - the launcher that has
>boosted all of NASA's recent Mars missions - is
>in danger of being abandoned. The alternative
>launchers cost more than Delta 2, so giving up
>Delta 2 means fewer, costlier missions - unless
>SpaceX succeeds in developing its proposed
>Delta 2 class launcher.
Here comes the revival of Delta IV-Lite, probably.
Not that bad, as the next two planetary missions are on EELV anyway.
Going up to Delta IV-Lite might cost a bit more, but will also give
performance improvements, so no more razor's edge launcher performance
like Spirit and Opportunity. Might also lead to a revival of
piggy-back payloads, which have been few and far between lately.
Brian
Damon Hill
news:n2dlf1t407pk3ks8s...@4ax.com:
I think I'd agree with that assessment. Delta IV Lite seems
like a step up without the annoyance of handling a cluster
of solid boosters. I think that's almost the only thing
that has blemished Delta II's record in the past 20 or
so years.
With any luck, SpaceX will be there in a few years to keep
the competition going. Should be interesting.
--Damon
Pat Flannery
Ed Kyle wrote:
>
>Most strikingly, the letter also says that NASA
>is agreeing to consider phasing out Delta 2 in
>favor of EELV. This means that long-running
>Thor-Delta, probably the world's most reliable
>active launch vehicle - the launcher that has
>boosted all of NASA's recent Mars missions - is
>in danger of being abandoned.
>
>
That sucks; that's our workhorse rocket.
Pat
Kim Keller
"Ed Kyle" <edky...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123722586.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Most strikingly, the letter also says that NASA
> is agreeing to consider phasing out Delta 2 in
> favor of EELV. This means that long-running
> Thor-Delta, probably the world's most reliable
> active launch vehicle - the launcher that has
> boosted all of NASA's recent Mars missions - is
> in danger of being abandoned. The alternative
> launchers cost more than Delta 2, so giving up
> Delta 2 means fewer, costlier missions - unless
> SpaceX succeeds in developing its proposed
> Delta 2 class launcher.
Actually, you'd be surprised what a Delta II costs these days. Delta II
Heavy pushes $100M.
On a totally separate note, Griffin's contention that he can develop the
"Shaft" CEV carrier for $5B stinks. There's no way it would cost that much
to ass-rate an EELV, and i'll bet the mission costs would be lower, too.
More politics at work.
Ed Kyle
> "Ed Kyle" <edky...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1123722586.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Most strikingly, the letter also says that NASA
> > is agreeing to consider phasing out Delta 2 in
> > favor of EELV. This means that long-running
> > Thor-Delta, probably the world's most reliable
> > active launch vehicle - the launcher that has
> > boosted all of NASA's recent Mars missions - is
> > in danger of being abandoned. The alternative
> > launchers cost more than Delta 2, so giving up
> > Delta 2 means fewer, costlier missions
>
> Heavy pushes $100M.
That is still tens of $millions less than an EELV,
at least according to Astronautix.com, which says
that the basic Medium EELVs now cost $130-140
million. NASA's MRO Atlas V press kit says the
launch cost $90 million, but I wonder about that
number. (A nice launch this morning, BTW, at least
up to the end of the first Centaur burn).
> On a totally separate note, Griffin's contention that he can develop the
> "Shaft" CEV carrier for $5B stinks. There's no way it would cost that much
> to ass-rate an EELV, and i'll bet the mission costs would be lower, too.
> More politics at work.
I always thought NASA would end up with one EELV
and the Air Force would get the other. But the
Air Force seems content keeping control of *both*
EELVs.
- Ed Kyle
john....@gmail.com
> At least space.com says so:
> "http://www.space.com/news/050810_dod_launcher.html"
>
> Story says that the Air Force says OK to NASA
> developing the SRB Stick for human spaceflight
> missions in the 25-30 metric ton class. NASA,
> in return, agrees to use EELVs for all payloads
> in the 5-20 metric ton class, including ISS
> resupply missions. (No word on where the
> 20-25 tonne payloads will go).
>
> Most strikingly, the letter also says that NASA
> is agreeing to consider phasing out Delta 2 in
> favor of EELV.
Why should NASA need an Air Force okay? This is very sad and disturbing
news. It represents another milestone in the Reagan/Bush/Bush plan to
incrementally phase out the shuttle by any means deemed necessary. The
militarization of our civilian space program is becoming ever more
obvious, as these increments now begin to appear much more rapidly.
It appears that soon our national space efforts will become almost
entirely shrouded in secrecy, where trillions can be wasted without
accountability. That seems to be what the voters want. The major
networks could well have afforded to hire good journalists with solid
engineering credentials, if those networks had only cared more about
peace than an unjust war.
Challenger's Ghost
Rand Simberg
john....@gmail.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>Ed Kyle wrote:
>> At least space.com says so:
>> "http://www.space.com/news/050810_dod_launcher.html"
>>
>> Story says that the Air Force says OK to NASA
>> developing the SRB Stick for human spaceflight
>> missions in the 25-30 metric ton class. NASA,
>> in return, agrees to use EELVs for all payloads
>> in the 5-20 metric ton class, including ISS
>> resupply missions. (No word on where the
>> 20-25 tonne payloads will go).
>>
>> Most strikingly, the letter also says that NASA
>> is agreeing to consider phasing out Delta 2 in
>> favor of EELV.
>
>Why should NASA need an Air Force okay?
Because the recent revision of national Space Transportation Policy
says it does.
Kim Keller
> That is still tens of $millions less than an EELV,
> at least according to Astronautix.com, which says
> that the basic Medium EELVs now cost $130-140
> million. NASA's MRO Atlas V press kit says the
> launch cost $90 million, but I wonder about that
> number. (A nice launch this morning, BTW, at least
> up to the end of the first Centaur burn).
Don't believe Astronautix' numbers; that website has many errors and prices
are a prime example. A straight D-IV or Atlas V could probably compete with
Delta II, particularly once USAF totally weans itself off D-II and NASA has
to assume all program costs.
>> On a totally separate note, Griffin's contention that he can develop the
>> "Shaft" CEV carrier for $5B stinks. There's no way it would cost that
>> much
>> to ass-rate an EELV, and i'll bet the mission costs would be lower, too.
>> More politics at work.
>
> I always thought NASA would end up with one EELV
> and the Air Force would get the other. But the
> Air Force seems content keeping control of *both*
> EELVs.
The EELV builders were very anxious to pursue NASA as a customer for VSE
missions. They want business and don't care whether it's DOD or NASA - or,
in the case of LM, commercial. Had NASA chosen EELV to support the tunnel
vision, USAF would've had no choice but to grin and bear it, per White House
space .
Ed Kyle
> "Ed Kyle" <edky...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1123849350....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > That is still tens of $millions less than an EELV,
> > at least according to Astronautix.com, which says
> > that the basic Medium EELVs now cost $130-140
> > million. NASA's MRO Atlas V press kit says the
> > launch cost $90 million, but I wonder about that
> > number. (A nice launch this morning, BTW, at least
> > up to the end of the first Centaur burn).
>
> Don't believe Astronautix' numbers; that website has many errors and prices
> are a prime example. A straight D-IV or Atlas V could probably compete with
> Delta II, particularly once USAF totally weans itself off D-II and NASA has
> to assume all program costs.
How about the GAO's numbers?
"http://www.gao.gov/htext/d04778r.html"
They say that EELV "Program and launch costs increased
by about $13.3 billion over the approved 2002 baseline
estimate of $18.8 billion". That's a 71% increase,
over the original EELV contract when a straight EELV
sold for something in the $70 million range, which
puts both straight EELV models up to the $120 million
plus range today. The GAO report says that the EELV
program is getting close to costing as much as
Titan IV.
- Ed Kyle
Scott Lowther
>
>The EELV builders were very anxious to pursue NASA as a customer for VSE
>missions. They want business and don't care whether it's DOD or NASA - or,
>in the case of LM, commercial. Had NASA chosen EELV to support the tunnel
>vision, USAF would've had no choice but to grin and bear it, per White House
>space .
>
>
And how about commercial custoners? Would the EELVs be provided in two
forms... a commercial, affordable version and a NASA man-rated version
that would require a complete overhaul of all their processes? Or would
there just be the expensive version? Woudl there be two sets of pads?
--
"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller
Rand Simberg
Lowther <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>The EELV builders were very anxious to pursue NASA as a customer for VSE
>>missions. They want business and don't care whether it's DOD or NASA - or,
>>in the case of LM, commercial. Had NASA chosen EELV to support the tunnel
>>vision, USAF would've had no choice but to grin and bear it, per White House
>>space .
>>
>>
>And how about commercial custoners? Would the EELVs be provided in two
>forms... a commercial, affordable version and a NASA man-rated version
>that would require a complete overhaul of all their processes? Or would
>there just be the expensive version?
That would just be the expensive version.
Though there might be a different version if by "man rated" one means
acceleration limits, and FOSD. But reliability wouldn't likely be
much different.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
news:4327e2d3...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
> On 12 Aug 2005 07:48:14 -0700, in a place far, far away,
> john....@gmail.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> way as to indicate that:
>
> Because the recent revision of national Space Transportation Policy
> says it does.
Which misses the point. A) Why do we need a Space Transportation Policy and
B) why should it make this a requirement.
Brian Thorn
<mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>Which misses the point. A) Why do we need a Space Transportation Policy and
>B) why should it make this a requirement.
Ostensibly, to avoid duplication of effort (and hence waste of
taxpayer dollars) on the part of the government. They still like to
throw money down the LockMart/Boeing hole, but the general idea (in
principle) is to not throw money down both holes.
Of course, EELV utterly ruined this concept. As soon as the Air Force
decided it wanted *both* EELVs, their "but we're trying to save money,
so NASA shouldn't build its own launcher!" stand was made ridiculous.
I suspect there is a letter from NASA to the Air Force somewhere whose
first draft goes something like this...
Dear General xxxx,
In 1986, you bailed out of our Shuttle program just when we needed you
the most. Now, your EELV program is hopeless overbudget because of
your own stupidity and you want us to bail you out. Go f*** yourself.
Sincerely,
NASA
That's why we need a Space Transportation Policy.
Brian
Kim Keller
"Scott Lowther" <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in message
news:MjfLe.3998$cg....@news02.roc.ny...
> And how about commercial custoners? Would the EELVs be provided in two
> forms... a commercial, affordable version and a NASA man-rated version
> that would require a complete overhaul of all their processes? Or would
> there just be the expensive version? Woudl there be two sets of pads?
The approach in OSP was to use a mission-unique "kit" that would provide the
necessary instrumentation for abort sensing. There were also some different
components that would be installed on crewed rockets. Commercial and DOD
customers wouldn't be required to purchase those parts, though they could if
they wanted.
The pads would've seen the addition of a crew access tower/escape system,
and that's about it.
Ed Kyle
It would also mean the end of the RS-27A,
(and probably of the Rocketdyne name) the
last hydrocarbon booster engine made in the
U.S. that produces more than 100 tonnes of
thrust. This engine has been around since
its precursor was developed for Navaho in
the early 1950s. Variants of this basic
powerplant were used by Atlas and Saturn I/IB.
It would mean that the SpaceX Merlin engine,
at only 40-some tonnes of thrust, would be
the most powerful hydrocarbon rocket engine
made in the U.S., the same country that built
the 680 tonne thrust F-1.
- Ed Kyle
Scott Lowther
>"Scott Lowther" <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in message
>news:MjfLe.3998$cg....@news02.roc.ny...
>
>
>>And how about commercial custoners? Would the EELVs be provided in two
>>forms... a commercial, affordable version and a NASA man-rated version
>>that would require a complete overhaul of all their processes? Or would
>>there just be the expensive version? Woudl there be two sets of pads?
>>
>>
>
>The approach in OSP was to use a mission-unique "kit" that would provide the
>necessary instrumentation for abort sensing.
>
So the approach to "human rating" was simply to have a big-ass abort
system? That's pretty lame. It's also contrary to NASA "human rating"
procedures.
>The pads would've seen the addition of a crew access tower/escape system,
>and that's about it.
>
>
Seems like somethign NASA would be unwilling to go along with...
Rand Simberg
Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>news:4327e2d3...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
>> On 12 Aug 2005 07:48:14 -0700, in a place far, far away,
>> john....@gmail.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
>> way as to indicate that:
>> >Why should NASA need an Air Force okay?
>>
>> Because the recent revision of national Space Transportation Policy
>> says it does.
>
>Which misses the point. A) Why do we need a Space Transportation Policy and
>B) why should it make this a requirement.
We need a space transportation policy (at least in theory) because we
spend billions of taxpayer dollars per year on space transportation.
The reason for the Air Force OK is to ensure that the policy is
coordinated, and that we aren't wasting money on parallel
developments.
Kim Keller
> So the approach to "human rating" was simply to have a big-ass abort
> system? That's pretty lame. It's also contrary to NASA "human rating"
> procedures.
And that's the Scott Lowther approach to responding to a post? Throw away
the words you don't like? That's pretty lame. Go back and read what I wrote.
No, the answer was NOT a "big-ass abort system".
>>The pads would've seen the addition of a crew access tower/escape system,
>>and that's about it.
>
> Seems like somethign NASA would be unwilling to go along with...
Since I was part of that process, I can say with confidence that they were.
Scott Lowther
>"Scott Lowther" <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in message
>news:VssLe.4456$j21....@news01.roc.ny...
>
>
>>So the approach to "human rating" was simply to have a big-ass abort
>>system? That's pretty lame. It's also contrary to NASA "human rating"
>>procedures.
>>
>>
>
>And that's the Scott Lowther approach to responding to a post? Throw away
>the words you don't like? That's pretty lame. Go back and read what I wrote.
>No, the answer was NOT a "big-ass abort system".
>
>
Wow, Kim. Time for you to calm the hell down. You wrote: "The approach
in OSP was to use a mission-unique "kit" that would provide the
necessary instrumentation for abort sensing. There were also some
different components that would be installed on crewed rockets.
Commercial and DOD customers wouldn't be required to purchase those
parts, though they could if they wanted."
So what else was done apart from "abort sensing" (which would, of
course, be entirely useless without an abort *system*? Or are you saying
that the EELV launchers woudl have substantially *less* than a "big ass
abort system?"
>>>The pads would've seen the addition of a crew access tower/escape system,
>>>and that's about it.
>>>
>>>
>>Seems like somethign NASA would be unwilling to go along with...
>>
>>
>
>Since I was part of that process, I can say with confidence that they were.
>
>
I've been on the contractor end of NASA requirements for about 10 years,
and they have *never* been that accomodating. Christ, you should have
seen the bullshit that CSD had to go through because of a minor pressure
blip in a single BSM igniter open-air test. NASA crawls up your ass and
takes you over like a Goa'uld for even trivial things. That they would
permit *astonishingly* limited changes and oversight for an entire
manned vehicle seems quite out of character.
Rand Simberg
Lowther <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Kim Keller wrote:
>
>>"Scott Lowther" <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in message
>>news:VssLe.4456$j21....@news01.roc.ny...
>>
>>
>>>So the approach to "human rating" was simply to have a big-ass abort
>>>system? That's pretty lame. It's also contrary to NASA "human rating"
>>>procedures.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>And that's the Scott Lowther approach to responding to a post? Throw away
>>the words you don't like? That's pretty lame. Go back and read what I wrote.
>>No, the answer was NOT a "big-ass abort system".
>>
>>
>Wow, Kim. Time for you to calm the hell down. You wrote: "The approach
>in OSP was to use a mission-unique "kit" that would provide the
>necessary instrumentation for abort sensing. There were also some
>different components that would be installed on crewed rockets.
>Commercial and DOD customers wouldn't be required to purchase those
>parts, though they could if they wanted."
>
>So what else was done apart from "abort sensing" (which would, of
>course, be entirely useless without an abort *system*? Or are you saying
>that the EELV launchers woudl have substantially *less* than a "big ass
>abort system?"
The launch abort system is a separate item from the launch vehicle.
It goes on top...
Also, batteries not included.
Scott Lowther
Uh-huh. And how does the launch about system know to go off? The vehicle
health maintenance systems, which do not exist on EELV and would require
some considerable effort to incorporate, would go *all* *over* the
launch vehicle. Or were you and Kim expecting the astronauts to just
know when to push the big red button?
>Also, batteries not included.
>
>
Nor the mountains of NASA paperwork required, not to mention complete
recertification for man rating.
Henry Spencer
Scott Lowther <"scottlowtherAT ix DOT netcom DOT com"> wrote:
>>The launch abort system is a separate item from the launch vehicle.
>>It goes on top...
>
>Uh-huh. And how does the launch about system know to go off? The vehicle
>health maintenance systems, which do not exist on EELV and would require
>some considerable effort to incorporate, would go *all* *over* the
>launch vehicle. Or were you and Kim expecting the astronauts to just
>know when to push the big red button?
Why would you do anything else? That was the approach taken to almost
all aborts on Apollo, after the automated abort system on Mercury proved
to be a nightmare to develop and debug. Quite extensive testing and
simulation established that the astronauts were perfectly adequate abort
decision-makers, with three possible exceptions -- cases where astronaut
response time might not be fast enough.
The only *launcher* instrumentation that the Apollo abort system
absolutely needed was pressure switches in the first-stage engines, to
detect engine failure or gross underperformance. Two or more first-stage
engines below 90% thrust was grounds for automatic abort if it happened
before center-engine cutoff.
Excessive attitude rate during first-stage flight before center-engine
cutoff was also grounds for automatic abort. The abort system had its own
sensors for that.
(In both of those cases, the main fear was sudden loss of control near
max q, leading to rapid vehicle breakup.)
The third automatic-abort case was structural failure at the launcher-
spacecraft interface, detected by break wires, I think.
>>Also, batteries not included.
>
>Nor the mountains of NASA paperwork required, not to mention complete
>recertification for man rating.
Man rating is a very political designation, as witness the fact that no
vehicle has ever actually met the current man-rating standards. Red tape
can be cut if necessary.
Besides, what's the alternative? It's not like the White Elephant (aka
the Stick) isn't going to need complete recertification and mountains of
paperwork. Its upper stage doesn't exist and its lower stage will surely
need modifications (even if you bend the rules enough to allow a large
solid stage at all).
--
No, the devil isn't in the details. | Henry Spencer
The devil is in the *assumptions*. | he...@spsystems.net
Rand Simberg
Lowther <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>So what else was done apart from "abort sensing" (which would, of
>>>course, be entirely useless without an abort *system*? Or are you saying
>>>that the EELV launchers woudl have substantially *less* than a "big ass
>>>abort system?"
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The launch abort system is a separate item from the launch vehicle.
>>It goes on top...
>>
>>
>Uh-huh. And how does the launch about system know to go off? The vehicle
>health maintenance systems, which do not exist on EELV and would require
>some considerable effort to incorporate, would go *all* *over* the
>launch vehicle. Or were you and Kim expecting the astronauts to just
>know when to push the big red button?
That's the "kit" that Kim was describing (though it would be mostly
engine diagnostics, not "all over" the launch vehicle).
Scott Lowther
>
>Why would you do anything else?
>
Because NASA has *said* that they want more than that. I worked on
escape systems during the OSP days, and it was lousy with such requirements.
>Besides, what's the alternative? It's not like the White Elephant (aka
>the Stick) isn't going to need complete recertification and mountains of
>paperwork.
>
Nobody said otherwise. But Kim made the rather remarkable suggestion
that all the EELVs would need is an abort system and a few boxes and
some mods to the towers and they'd be good to go.
“There would be a bunch of changes that would have to be put into the
EELV to human-rate it, and I don’t know that that’s the most fiscally
sound path for NASA to go down. And frankly, I don’t know that the EELV
community would welcome us getting into their production lines in order
to make those kinds of modifications,” Griffin said.
Kim Keller
> Wow, Kim. Time for you to calm the hell down. You wrote: "The approach in
> OSP was to use a mission-unique "kit" that would provide the
> necessary instrumentation for abort sensing. There were also some
> different components that would be installed on crewed rockets. Commercial
> and DOD customers wouldn't be required to purchase those parts, though
> they could if they wanted."
>
> So what else was done apart from "abort sensing" (which would, of course,
> be entirely useless without an abort *system*? Or are you saying that the
> EELV launchers woudl have substantially *less* than a "big ass abort
> system?"
Ya see? You did it again. You omitted a key sentence: "There were also some
different components that would be installed on crewed rockets." That means
the manufacturers would have reviewed their critical items list and
identified those components that would need reliability enhancements in
order to satisfy NASA's desire for safety. That effort may have involved
re-engineering a part or providing redundancy. As I recall, the lists were
fairly short. Customers who were not flying people would have the option of
purchasing those parts for their missions.
Are you still paying attention? The boosters would've had a system similar
to that used on the Saturn V, where a fairly short list of key parameters
were monitored by a box in the spacecraft. The launcher people would've had
to add some sensors and a redundant wiring harnesses that fed the box. That
box would have the abort control, both automatic and manual.
> I've been on the contractor end of NASA requirements for about 10 years,
> and they have *never* been that accomodating. Christ, you should have seen
> the bullshit that CSD had to go through because of a minor pressure blip
> in a single BSM igniter open-air test. NASA crawls up your ass and takes
> you over like a Goa'uld for even trivial things. That they would permit
> *astonishingly* limited changes and oversight for an entire manned vehicle
> seems quite out of character.
The difference was the decision to use boosters that were not NASA-specific.
They still had to serve other customers, which meant that keeping their
launch complexes out of service for extended modification/rebuilding was out
of the question. An added difference was the fact that JSC was not involved
in the launcher end of the program. NASA's Launch Services Program Office
(that's who I work for) ran the launcher side of the program and has a much
better approach to dealing with the contractors. In concert with the two
launcher companies we developed concepts for adding GSE redundancy where
needed and we came up with a kick-ass escape system that would put
slidewires to shame. We also developed a way to install these pad mods
without unduly interfering with the companies' launch manifests.
Kim Keller
> “There would be a bunch of changes that would have to be put into the EELV
> to human-rate it, and I don’t know that that’s the most fiscally sound
> path for NASA to go down. And frankly, I don’t know that the EELV
> community would welcome us getting into their production lines in order to
> make those kinds of modifications,” Griffin said.
Griffin was dead-set on using shuttle-derived systems from the git-go, so
any comments he makes about EELVs for exploration are obviously going to
carry a negative connotation.
Scott Lowther
>
> An added difference was the fact that JSC was not involved
>in the launcher end of the program. NASA's Launch Services Program Office
>(that's who I work for) ran the launcher side of the program and has a much
>better approach to dealing with the contractors.
>
Had you simply said something like that up front, you could have saved
us all a lot of effort.
>Griffin was dead-set on using shuttle-derived systems from the git-go, so
>any comments he makes about EELVs for exploration are obviously going to
>carry a negative connotation.
>
The question is, especially in light of how much the astronaut corp
*really* seems to dislike the D-IV... was he *wrong*?
Kim Keller
> The question is, especially in light of how much the astronaut corp
> *really* seems to dislike the D-IV... was he *wrong*?
Actually, I'd like to see a show of hands from the astro corp of those who
are opposed to EELVs. And I'd like to ask them why they feel that way. They
didn't seem upset about their use in OSP. Perhaps we're dealing with a vocal
minority - or an administrator who seems to be doing everything he can to
steer the program toward shuttle-derived systems.
Kim Keller
> Uh-huh. And how does the launch about system know to go off? The vehicle
> health maintenance systems, which do not exist on EELV and would require
> some considerable effort to incorporate, would go *all* *over* the launch
> vehicle. Or were you and Kim expecting the astronauts to just know when to
> push the big red button?
"Health maintenance system"? Expendables don't need them. Now, a Health
Monitoring System, yeah, that would be useful and that's what would make up
part of the mission kit for a crewed launch. And no, it would not require
considerable effort to incorporate. Some sensors would have to be added as
supplements to what's already flown, some redundant wire harnesses and a
reporting box that forwards status messages to the spacecraft's abort box
for processing and action (as required). Those are all things easily
incorporated during vehicle buildup.
>>Also, batteries not included.
>>
> Nor the mountains of NASA paperwork required, not to mention complete
> recertification for man rating.
Recertification is a paper exercise, which the LSCs are very much used to.
It's hardly a mountainous roadblock, and certainly the whole effort would
cost nowhere near Griffin's announced estimate of $5B for development of the
"Shaft".
Rand Simberg
Keller" <keke...@nospam.cfl.rr.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Recertification is a paper exercise, which the LSCs are very much used to.
>It's hardly a mountainous roadblock, and certainly the whole effort would
>cost nowhere near Griffin's announced estimate of $5B for development of the
>"Shaft".
You mean the "Satay."
Kim Keller
> How about the GAO's numbers?
> "http://www.gao.gov/htext/d04778r.html"
>
> They say that EELV "Program and launch costs increased
> by about $13.3 billion over the approved 2002 baseline
> estimate of $18.8 billion". That's a 71% increase,
> over the original EELV contract when a straight EELV
> sold for something in the $70 million range, which
> puts both straight EELV models up to the $120 million
> plus range today. The GAO report says that the EELV
> program is getting close to costing as much as
> Titan IV.
Don't forget that prices will come down as orders go up. NASA has been
launching roughly four space science missions per year on Delta II. Take
those orders and insert them in the EELV companies' order books and see what
the price drops to.
Scott Lowther
>"Scott Lowther" <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in message
>news:dfJLe.4119$cg....@news02.roc.ny...
>
>
>>The question is, especially in light of how much the astronaut corp
>>*really* seems to dislike the D-IV... was he *wrong*?
>>
>>
>
>Actually, I'd like to see a show of hands from the astro corp of those who
>are opposed to EELVs. And I'd like to ask them why they feel that way. They
>didn't seem upset about their use in OSP.
>
Well, a whole lot of alternatives were not proposed during OSP.
>Perhaps we're dealing with .... an administrator who seems to be doing everything he can to
>steer the program toward shuttle-derived systems.
>
Good for him. Finally, at last, a NASA administrator who isn't a schmuck.
Scott Lowther
Wouldn't those orders go instead towards Falcon V or thereabouts?
Scott Lowther
Namecalling. The mark of the lost arguement.
Scott Lowther
>"Scott Lowther" <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in message
>news:D%yLe.4488$j21....@news01.roc.ny...
>
>
>>Uh-huh. And how does the launch about system know to go off? The vehicle
>>health maintenance systems, which do not exist on EELV and would require
>>some considerable effort to incorporate, would go *all* *over* the launch
>>vehicle. Or were you and Kim expecting the astronauts to just know when to
>>push the big red button?
>>
>>
>
>"Health maintenance system"? Expendables don't need them. Now, a Health
>Monitoring System, yeah, that would be useful
>
Typo on my part.
>and that's what would make up
>part of the mission kit for a crewed launch. And no, it would not require
>considerable effort to incorporate. Some sensors would have to be added as
>supplements to what's already flown, some redundant wire harnesses and a
>reporting box that forwards status messages to the spacecraft's abort box
>for processing and action (as required). Those are all things easily
>incorporated during vehicle buildup.
>
>
"Easily?" Apparently you deal witha different NASA than I have.
>
>
>>>Also, batteries not included.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Nor the mountains of NASA paperwork required, not to mention complete
>>recertification for man rating.
>>
>>
>
>Recertification is a paper exercise, which the LSCs are very much used to.
>It's hardly a mountainous roadblock, and certainly the whole effort would
>cost nowhere near Griffin's announced estimate of $5B for development of the
>"Shaft".
>
Oh, I dunno. I can see the Boeing Blue Fireball Of Death EELV costing a
very large sum to recertify... because it *can.*
Kim Keller
> Wouldn't those orders go instead towards Falcon V or thereabouts?
I suppose that depends on contract competition, doesn't it?
Kim Keller
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
> You mean the "Satay."
I suppose you could call it that, but it sure seems to me that the taxpayers
are going to get the Shaft.
Kim Keller
> "Easily?" Apparently you deal witha different NASA than I have.
Yup. The non-JSC NASA.
> Oh, I dunno. I can see the Boeing Blue Fireball Of Death EELV costing a
> very large sum to recertify... because it *can.*
That effect is caused by Boeing's decision to build a dry pad. It's my
understanding that a deluge system is being designed now, although one is
not needed. in order to calm nervous nellies who don't believe Boeing's
assertion that the fireball is not a danger.
Kim Keller
> Good for him. Finally, at last, a NASA administrator who isn't a schmuck.
Let's see if you feel that way when the 2020 Congress deletes all VSE
funding because the mission costs are too high.
Kim Keller
> Namecalling. The mark of the lost arguement.
The argument was lost when Griffin took office. He came to office still
nurturing his love affair with shuttle-derived hardware, and the rumblings I
hear suggest that he told his VSE study people to *make* shuttle-derived the
answer, regardless of the true cost or the economies to be had from EELV
use.
Rand Simberg
Keller" <keke...@nospam.cfl.rr.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
Hey, pork on a stick, the shaft, it's all good.
John Schilling
>Henry Spencer wrote:
>>Why would you do anything else?
>Because NASA has *said* that they want more than that. I worked on
>escape systems during the OSP days, and it was lousy with such requirements.
>>Besides, what's the alternative? It's not like the White Elephant (aka
>>the Stick) isn't going to need complete recertification and mountains of
>>paperwork.
>Nobody said otherwise. But Kim made the rather remarkable suggestion
>that all the EELVs would need is an abort system and a few boxes and
>some mods to the towers and they'd be good to go.
>
>“There would be a bunch of changes that would have to be put into the
>EELV to human-rate it, and I don’t know that that’s the most fiscally
>sound path for NASA to go down. And frankly, I don’t know that the EELV
>community would welcome us getting into their production lines in order
>to make those kinds of modifications,” Griffin said.
The "bunch of changes" that would need to be made to the EELV in order to
turn it into a suitable launcher for the EELV, is almost certainly many
orders of magnitude smaller than the number of changes that would need to
be made to the stack of Stick viewgraphs in order to turn it into a launch
vehicle of any sort.
And if the only requirement were actually getting the CEV into orbit 95+
percent of the time and getting the crew back in one piece in 90+ percent
of the failures, I think that the "bunch of changes" to the EELV would
nearly vanish. Just stuff at the payload interface, which is negotiable
for each new payload anyway. Most of the other changes are mandated for
regulatory, not material, reasons.
And those are NASA regulations and NASA mandates. Which is why we will
get the stick. NASA wants the Stick, so NASA will mandate and regulate
EELV into complete incompatibility with CEV.
Which is their perogative. I just hope we are all wise enough to recognize
where the blame goes. The EELV community has produced a couple of vehicles
that are not quite as bloated as usual for dinosaurian products, and that
*are* materially suitable for the CEV launch mission with minor changes.
NASA will chose not to use them because they want their very own toys made
by their very own toymakers.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Brian Thorn
<keke...@nospam.cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> Oh, I dunno. I can see the Boeing Blue Fireball Of Death EELV costing a
>> very large sum to recertify... because it *can.*
>
>That effect is caused by Boeing's decision to build a dry pad. It's my
>understanding that a deluge system is being designed now, although one is
>not needed. in order to calm nervous nellies who don't believe Boeing's
>assertion that the fireball is not a danger.
I think they'd have to do that before putting a crew on Delta IV. If
nothing else, to cut back on the number of people watching on
television who would have a heart attack upon seeing the CEV launcher
disappear in a fireball on the pad, unaware that's normal!
Brian
Scott Lowther
>That effect is caused by Boeing's decision to build a dry pad. It's my
>understanding that a deluge system is being designed now, although one is
>not needed. in order to calm nervous nellies
>
>
AKA, the astronaut corps. Pretty much by definition the bravest people
in the land.
Scott Lowther
By 2020 I expect that NASA will be a small fraction of the American
manned space effort.
Scott Lowther
>The "bunch of changes" that would need to be made to the EELV in order to
>turn it into a suitable launcher for the EELV, is almost certainly many
>orders of magnitude smaller than the number of changes that would need to
>be made to the stack of Stick viewgraphs in order to turn it into a launch
>vehicle of any sort.
>
>
Not necessarily. NASA rules regarding man rating are that the vehicle
has to be designed from the get-go to be manned rated. By that alone,
EELV is lost compared to the Stick.
>And if the only requirement were actually getting the CEV into orbit 95+
>percent of the time and getting the crew back in one piece in 90+ percent
>of the failures, I think that the "bunch of changes" to the EELV would
>nearly vanish.
>
Sure. just launch on Proton. That would be cheaper by far than all the
other options.
>Which is their perogative. I just hope we are all wise enough to recognize
>where the blame goes. The EELV community has produced a couple of vehicles
>that are not quite as bloated as usual for dinosaurian products, and that
>*are* materially suitable for the CEV launch mission with minor changes.
>NASA will chose not to use them because they want their very own toys made
>by their very own toymakers.
>
>
Ummm... you see LockMartBoeNorGrum as being outside of the NASA sphere
of influence?
Pat Flannery
Scott Lowther wrote:
> John Schilling wrote:
>
>> The "bunch of changes" that would need to be made to the EELV in
>> order to
>> turn it into a suitable launcher for the EELV, is almost certainly many
>> orders of magnitude smaller than the number of changes that would
>> need to
>> be made to the stack of Stick viewgraphs in order to turn it into a
>> launch
>> vehicle of any sort.
>>
>>
> Not necessarily. NASA rules regarding man rating are that the vehicle
> has to be designed from the get-go to be manned rated. By that alone,
> EELV is lost compared to the Stick.
>
>
>> And if the only requirement were actually getting the CEV into orbit
>> 95+ percent of the time and getting the crew back in one piece in 90+
>> percent of the failures, I think that the "bunch of changes" to the
>> EELV would nearly vanish.
>
> Sure. just launch on Proton. That would be cheaper by far than all the
> other options.
CEV goes on Proton, Proton suffers a failure during ascent, CEV fires
its escape system, Proton is destroyed by Range Safety, CEV opens its
parachutes, descending CEV floats through destroyed Proton propellant
cloud, parachutes dissolve, CEV falls to destruction.
Not good.
Pat
Anthony Frost
Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
> CEV goes on Proton, Proton suffers a failure during ascent, CEV fires
> its escape system, Proton is destroyed by Range Safety, CEV opens its
> parachutes, descending CEV floats through destroyed Proton propellant
> cloud, parachutes dissolve, CEV falls to destruction.
Well if you use a flimsy american parachute comrade...
Didn't one of the TKS test launches have an abort like this? The top
capsule was fitted with a full escape system and survived well enough to
be relaunched later?
Anthony
Jeff Findley
> Kim Keller wrote:
>
> >That effect is caused by Boeing's decision to build a dry pad. It's my
> >understanding that a deluge system is being designed now, although one is
> >not needed. in order to calm nervous nellies
> >
>
> AKA, the astronaut corps. Pretty much by definition the bravest people
> in the land.
Are you sure that the nervous nellies that Kim is talking about are the
astronauts themselves? My guess would be managers at NASA who are worried
about keeping up the public appearance of safety in the wake of the Columbia
disaster.
Look who cancelled the Hubble repair mission after the Columbia disaster.
That certainly didn't seem to come from the astronaut corps. The nervous
nelly there seems to have been Sean O'Keefe.
Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.
Jeff Findley
"Kim Keller" <keke...@nospam.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:UCQLe.24911$dJ5....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
No kidding. When the NASA Administrator has preconceived notions about how
something will be done, do you really want to argue with him, especially
when it means that his plan will preserve jobs at NASA?
By the way Scott, have you read this lecture by Michael Griffin?
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/FALL2001/lecture29.pdf
Pat Flannery
Anthony Frost wrote:
>Well if you use a flimsy american parachute comrade...
>
>Didn't one of the TKS test launches have an abort like this? The top
>capsule was fitted with a full escape system and survived well enough to
>be relaunched later?
>
>
One got off of the malfunctioning Proton successfully; another did not
due to its lack of an escape tower.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/tksva.htm
"04 August 1977 TKS VA s/n 009P/P Program: Almaz
<http://www.astronautix.com/project/almaz.htm>. Launch Site: Baikonur
<http://www.astronautix.com/sites/baikonur.htm> . Launch Vehicle: Proton
8K82K <http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/pro8k82k.htm>. FAILURE: Failure.
A repeat test of the VA capsules from LVI-1 of a month earlier were atop
the Proton (VA's 009P and 009L). However the booster failed at 49
seconds after launch. The SAS launch escape system pulled the top
capsule (009P) away from the exploding Proton rocket and it was
successfully recovered. The lower capsule was lost with the booster.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
04 August 1977 TKS VA s/n 009L/P Program: Almaz
<http://www.astronautix.com/project/almaz.htm>. Launch Site: Baikonur
<http://www.astronautix.com/sites/baikonur.htm> . Launch Vehicle: Proton
8K82K <http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/pro8k82k.htm>. FAILURE: First
stage engine steering unit failure at T+40.1 seconds. Mass: 4,250 kg.
Spacecraft lost in booster explosion."
<>Later, they had a pad shutdown of a Proton with two of the VA capsules
on board, and the top capsule fired its escape system- but suffered a
parachute failure. Soviet escape systems had a pretty good record overall.
I wonder how much concern there was about the hypergolic fuels of the
Titan II in regards to the use of the Gemini ejection seats?
Pat
lex...@ix.netcom.com
astronauts themselves?
I've personally spoken to a few astronauts (4 or 5... by no means
necessarily a representative sample), and they were all quite
displeased at the notion of riding the Delta IV to orbit - especially
given that a likely more reliable option is to be made available. YMMV.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
something will be done, do you really want to argue with him,
especially
when it means that his plan will preserve jobs at NASA?
And especially when his preconceived notions actually mean NASA should
*do* *something*?
Seems to me that the important thing isn't that some random new guy has
preconceived notions... but that some guys preconceived notions made
him Da Man.
> By the way Scott, have you read this lecture by Michael Griffin?
Yup, some months ago.
Ed Kyle
Since the EELVs duplicate each other's capabilities
and not those of Delta II, why not keep Delta II
and drop one of the EELVs instead? I bet DoD
would save a lot more cash that way.
- Ed Kyle
John Schilling
>
>John Schilling wrote:
>
>>The "bunch of changes" that would need to be made to the EELV in order to
>>turn it into a suitable launcher for the EELV, is almost certainly many
>>orders of magnitude smaller than the number of changes that would need to
>>be made to the stack of Stick viewgraphs in order to turn it into a launch
>>vehicle of any sort.
>Not necessarily. NASA rules regarding man rating are that the vehicle
>has to be designed from the get-go to be manned rated. By that alone,
>EELV is lost compared to the Stick.
Right. NASA rules. Which do not bind NASA, because NASA can rewrite or
waiver itself out of NASA rules. HArdly something unprecedented where
man-rating was concerned.
If NASA wants to put the CEV on the Stick, NASA will write the rules such
that only the Stick can carry the CEV. If NASA wants to put the CEV on
an EELV, then that's what NASA rules will say. And if NASA just wants to
put the CEV safely in orbit, then NASA rules will say that the CEV can
ride any vehicle that can safely carry it into orbit, and it will ride
an EELV.
>>And if the only requirement were actually getting the CEV into orbit 95+
>>percent of the time and getting the crew back in one piece in 90+ percent
>>of the failures, I think that the "bunch of changes" to the EELV would
>>nearly vanish.
>Sure. just launch on Proton. That would be cheaper by far than all the
>other options.
It would run afoul of rules which are not NASA's, and which NASA therefore
must obey. It's also not clear that it's true; commercial Proton prices
are not noticeably cheaper than EELV, and NASA would have to pay the
commercial price, not the cost, of any Protons it wants to buy.
With apologies to Jordin Kare, you may be confusing the Proton with
that mythical launch vehicle, the Neutron. Just like the Proton, but
no charge. Alas, however nice it would be to be able to magic some of
those into existence with the "international cooperation" wand, they
don't actually exist.
>>Which is their perogative. I just hope we are all wise enough to recognize
>>where the blame goes. The EELV community has produced a couple of vehicles
>>that are not quite as bloated as usual for dinosaurian products, and that
>>*are* materially suitable for the CEV launch mission with minor changes.
>>NASA will chose not to use them because they want their very own toys made
>>by their very own toymakers.
>Ummm... you see LockMartBoeNorGrum as being outside of the NASA sphere
>of influence?
By the numbers, they are pretty clearly part of the DoD sphere of influence.
Not that they are averse to doing business with NASA, of course. If NASA
wants to put the CEV in orbit as cheaply and safely as possible, LockMart
and BoeDonnel will sell them modified EELVs to do it with. If NASA wants
to build the Stick, LockMart and BoeDonnel and the rest will build as many
Stick components as NASA lets them.
It's entirely NASA's choice, and entirely NASA's fault.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Scott Lowther
>Right. NASA rules. Which do not bind NASA, because NASA can rewrite or
>waiver itself out of NASA rules. HArdly something unprecedented where
>man-rating was concerned.
>
>
*Recently*?
>If NASA wants to put the CEV on the Stick, NASA will write the rules such
>that only the Stick can carry the CEV. If NASA wants to put the CEV on
>an EELV, then that's what NASA rules will say. And if NASA just wants to
>put the CEV safely in orbit, then NASA rules will say that the CEV can
>ride any vehicle that can safely carry it into orbit, and it will ride
>an EELV.
>
>
Or a Falcon V.
Kim Keller
> AKA, the astronaut corps. Pretty much by definition the bravest people in
> the land.
And that claim is pure bullshit.
Kim Keller
"scottlo...@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com" <lex...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:1124125414....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I've personally spoken to a few astronauts (4 or 5... by no means
> necessarily a representative sample), and they were all quite
> displeased at the notion of riding the Delta IV to orbit - especially
> given that a likely more reliable option is to be made available. YMMV.
And we talked to astros during OSP who had no problem with riding EELVs. So
what?
Kim Keller
> By 2020 I expect that NASA will be a small fraction of the American manned
> space effort.
Let's hope so. But I'll still be paying taxes that are used to pay for an
overpriced NASA launch system.
Kim Keller
"scottlo...@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com" <lex...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:1124125592.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> And especially when his preconceived notions actually mean NASA should
> *do* *something*?
Griffin didn't originate the VSE, he just took the call to replace O'Keefe.
His notions were under review before he arrived at NASA. The difference was
that shuttle-derived received perhaps a more even-handed assessment than
they have received since his ascension to the throne.
> Seems to me that the important thing isn't that some random new guy has
> preconceived notions... but that some guys preconceived notions made
> him Da Man.
You have proof that his love affair with shuttle-derived got him his job?
Scott Lowther
Whatever, Kim. You've developed the anger of OM, but not the wit.
Scott Lowther
During OSP, what other booster options were *seriously* proposed?
Scott Lowther
Yeah, and you're paying into a trillion dollars a year for Social
Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Set some priorities. Direct your rage
appropriately.
Scott Lowther
>"scottlo...@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com" <lex...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>message news:1124125592.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>And especially when his preconceived notions actually mean NASA should
>>*do* *something*?
>>
>>
>
>Griffin didn't originate the VSE, he just took the call to replace O'Keefe.
>
>
Nevertheless, he has been saying for quite a while that NASA should *do*
*something.* O'Keefe did not.
>His notions were under review before he arrived at NASA. The difference was
>that shuttle-derived received perhaps a more even-handed assessment than
>they have received since his ascension to the throne.
>
>
>
>>Seems to me that the important thing isn't that some random new guy has
>>preconceived notions... but that some guys preconceived notions made
>>him Da Man.
>>
>>
>
>You have proof that his love affair with shuttle-derived got him his job?
>
>
He was quite clear beforehand that NASA should *do* *something* and
that SDV was a good way to do it.
George William Herbert
>John Schilling wrote:
>>Right. NASA rules. Which do not bind NASA, because NASA can rewrite or
>>waiver itself out of NASA rules. HArdly something unprecedented where
>>man-rating was concerned.
>
>*Recently*?
The CEV design rules don't match the "Man Rating" rules, precisely,
so yes...
>>If NASA wants to put the CEV on the Stick, NASA will write the rules such
>>that only the Stick can carry the CEV. If NASA wants to put the CEV on
>>an EELV, then that's what NASA rules will say. And if NASA just wants to
>>put the CEV safely in orbit, then NASA rules will say that the CEV can
>>ride any vehicle that can safely carry it into orbit, and it will ride
>>an EELV.
>>
>Or a Falcon V.
More likely Falcon IX, or XXXI.
You'd have to cut the CEV into several sections with a large saw to
fit it on Falcon V... hey, wait, there's an idea...
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com / gher...@venturerspace.com
George William Herbert
What makes you think that the marginal cost of a Delta II core and
9 GEMs is less than that of a Delta IV core and small upper stage?
If we're going to use Delta IV and Atlas V for the mid/high range,
using them for the low range to keep the volume up makes perfect
sense, unless even with those additional EELV launches the cost
stays higher.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Anthony Frost
Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
>
> Anthony Frost wrote:
>
> >Well if you use a flimsy american parachute comrade...
> >
> >Didn't one of the TKS test launches have an abort like this? The top
> >capsule was fitted with a full escape system and survived well enough to
> >be relaunched later?
> >
> >
> One got off of the malfunctioning Proton successfully; another did not
> due to its lack of an escape tower.
> http://www.astronautix.com/craft/tksva.htm
>
> "04 August 1977 TKS VA s/n 009P/P Program: Almaz
>
> A repeat test of the VA capsules from LVI-1 of a month earlier were atop
> the Proton (VA's 009P and 009L). However the booster failed at 49
> seconds after launch. The SAS launch escape system pulled the top
> capsule (009P) away from the exploding Proton rocket and it was
> successfully recovered. The lower capsule was lost with the booster.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 04 August 1977 TKS VA s/n 009L/P Program: Almaz
>
> Spacecraft lost in booster explosion."
30 March 1978 Cosmos 997 Program: Almaz
"One source indicates that one of the capsules was 009P, on its third
launch and second flight to orbit."
009P had had one earlier launch, a launch abort, and (possibly) a third
flight.
Anthony
George William Herbert
>CEV goes on Proton, Proton suffers a failure during ascent, CEV fires
>its escape system, Proton is destroyed by Range Safety, CEV opens its
>parachutes, descending CEV floats through destroyed Proton propellant
>cloud, parachutes dissolve, CEV falls to destruction.
>Not good.
There should be no flight regime where you float down through the
debris cloud after an abort.
Getting and staying clear of the likely fireball is a primary
goal of the escape system...
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Jeff Findley
> Kim Keller wrote:
>
> >"scottlo...@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com" <lex...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> >message news:1124125414....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>I've personally spoken to a few astronauts (4 or 5... by no means
> >>necessarily a representative sample), and they were all quite
> >>displeased at the notion of riding the Delta IV to orbit - especially
> >>given that a likely more reliable option is to be made available. YMMV.
> >
> >And we talked to astros during OSP who had no problem with riding EELVs.
So
> >what?
> >
> During OSP, what other booster options were *seriously* proposed?
Which just goes to show that there *are* NASA astronauts that will ride just
about anything to get into space. NASA astronauts have been crammed into
Soyuz to be launched to ISS. Hell, NASA astronauts have even agreed to live
in Mir, potential deathtrap that it was, when it was still flying. While
they may each have their prejudices about what they'd like to ride, what
they're willing to ride to get into space is an entirely different thing.
Besides, NASA has a glut of astronauts anyway. During the long span between
the last Apollo lunar landing missions and the first shuttle flight, there
were very few flight opportunities (three Skylab missions and ASTP). During
this time, several astronauts left NASA, but there was a huge supply of
overly qualified people applying to be astronauts to more than make up for
the people leaving.
The last thing I'd do is choose a future launch vehicle based on the
prejudices of the current astronaut corps. If they don't like the choice,
they know where the door is.
Ed Kyle
> Ed Kyle <edky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Since the EELVs duplicate each other's capabilities
> >and not those of Delta II, why not keep Delta II
> >and drop one of the EELVs instead? I bet DoD
> >would save a lot more cash that way.
>
> What makes you think that the marginal cost of a Delta II core and
> 9 GEMs is less than that of a Delta IV core and small upper stage?
I think Boeing did this comparison several years ago
and decided to keep Delta II and cancel Delta IV Light
(I'm assuming that is what you mean by "small upper
stage"). But even a Delta IV Light would have 1.5
times or so more dry mass than a Delta 7920, so the
odds are that it would have higher marginal costs.
The issue is that there are currently three active
ELV production lines, with their inherent fixed
costs, and all three are underutilized. If one has
to go to save money, wouldn't more money be saved
by shutting down one of the bigger vehicle lines?
On the other hand, if the argument is that the
bigger EELV vehicles are so flexible and wonderful
that they can handle the Delta II class payloads,
then, since the EELVs duplicate each other and
would still be underutilized even with the Delta II
payloads, why not shut down *two* production lines
and just keep one EELV?
I think the latter option is where we're heading.
All three production lines are going to be under
one roof soon. If Delta II is shut down, and it
seems the pressure is on to shut it down, then
this co-production setup, where the Alliance will
supposedly pick the best vehicle for each payload,
will soon find itself picking only the better of
the two EELVs (and I think we all know which one
it is) over and over again. They won't have to
shut down one of the EELV lines. It will just
stop running by default.
- Ed Kyle
Ed Kyle
> "Ed Kyle" <edky...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > If Delta II is shut down, and it
> > seems the pressure is on to shut it down, then
> > this co-production setup, where the Alliance will
> > supposedly pick the best vehicle for each payload,
> > will soon find itself picking only the better of
> > the two EELVs (and I think we all know which one
> > it is) over and over again. They won't have to
>
I shouldn't wade into this, because there will be
some definite differences of opinion here, but I
do think that a majority of the engineering-
oriented clear-thinkers would say that one of the
two not only has a better design concept but also
has had a cleaner, better operating record so far.
The better one, and I dare not mention it by name
lest I be crucified, is smaller and weighs less dry,
but can carry substantially more payload in its
core form. The better one has more core liftoff
thrust using a simplier, non-cryogenic fuel. The
better one uses a much simplier launch pad design.
The better one has flown more often, and has had
shorter, less problematic launch campaigns. The
better one hasn't experienced any major in-flight
anomolies. The better one has a longer track record,
with some of its components being directly derived
from equipment that first flew more than 40 years ago.
The manufacturer of the better one has lost far,
far less money on its EELV to date than the
manufacturer of the other one.
Don't get me wrong. I think that both EELV designs
are remarkable achievements. But I also think that
one of them is better than the other.
- Ed Kyle
lex...@ix.netcom.com
prejudices of the current astronaut corps. If they don't like the
choice,
they know where the door is.
Ah, but they *do* seem to like the choice. That's the point.
l...@cadence.com
>
> The last thing I'd do is choose a future launch vehicle based on the
> prejudices of the current astronaut corps.
I think their prejudices would be very interesting, if they were
collected completely anonymously, so that they could be honest. They
should be in a good position to hear the engineering scuttlebutt about
each option, and they are the ones that would take the risks. Also,
you'd have to have them rank the options, since if you ask "If we build
it, will you ride it?" then the answer would of course be yes for every
option.
Lou Scheffer
John Schilling
says...
>> >Since the EELVs duplicate each other's capabilities
>> >and not those of Delta II, why not keep Delta II
>> >and drop one of the EELVs instead? I bet DoD
>> >would save a lot more cash that way.
>> What makes you think that the marginal cost of a Delta II core and
>> 9 GEMs is less than that of a Delta IV core and small upper stage?
>I think Boeing did this comparison several years ago
>and decided to keep Delta II and cancel Delta IV Light
>(I'm assuming that is what you mean by "small upper
>stage"). But even a Delta IV Light would have 1.5
>times or so more dry mass than a Delta 7920, so the
>odds are that it would have higher marginal costs.
>The issue is that there are currently three active
>ELV production lines, with their inherent fixed
>costs, and all three are underutilized. If one has
>to go to save money, wouldn't more money be saved
>by shutting down one of the bigger vehicle lines?
More of whose money?
Certainly not the customer's, and as I am a US taxpayer
but not a LockMart or BoeDonnel stockholder, not mine.
If one of the big-vehicle lines is shut down we have
one small-vehicle production line and one big-vehicle
production line, which means both small and big vehicles
will be sold at monopoly prices, e.g. expensive.
Two big-vehicle production lines at least allows for the
possibility of competition. And a competitively priced
big vehicle is likely to be cheaper than a monopoly-priced
small vehicle, so that's a net win even if we launch the
small payloads on the big vehicle.
Plus, the small payloads themselves can get about an order
of magnitude cheaper if you've got the extra capability of a
large launcher to allow generous margins, though that is an
opportunity unlikely to be exploited.
>On the other hand, if the argument is that the
>bigger EELV vehicles are so flexible and wonderful
>that they can handle the Delta II class payloads,
>then, since the EELVs duplicate each other and
>would still be underutilized even with the Delta II
>payloads, why not shut down *two* production lines
>and just keep one EELV?
We want them somewhat underulitized, so they have to keep
thinking maybe a price cut will get them a bigger fraction
of the market. Two lines both running at full capacity
gets us back into monopoly territory.
>I think the latter option is where we're heading.
>All three production lines are going to be under
>one roof soon.
Which basically means we are screwed until Falcon V gets
on line, and hopefully Falcon will get some competition
and/or backup before too long.
But if there were a way to prevent the interim screwing,
it would involve keeping both EELV lines, and if at all
possible Delta II as well, independantly running.
Ed Kyle
> >ELV production lines, with their inherent fixed
> >costs, and all three are underutilized. If one has
> >to go to save money, wouldn't more money be saved
> >by shutting down one of the bigger vehicle lines?
>
> More of whose money?
>
> Certainly not the customer's, and as I am a US taxpayer
> but not a LockMart or BoeDonnel stockholder, not mine.
If one of the EELV lines were shut down, U.S. taxpayers
would save money, because U.S. taxpayers effectively pay
a fixed cost to keep these production lines open no
matter how many EELVs each one produces. The U.S.
government as the primary customer (indeed the only
customer for Delta IV), pays the fixed costs of
production and of launch support, etc.. Commercial
customers, the few that remain, pay marginal costs.
So there is no competition really. Since the
government has decided that it wants two EELVs for
redundancy, and since there are only two EELV
contractors, the government must pay what the
contractors tell it to pay. The cost of redundancy
is how much it costs to keep two production lines open,
rather than one, because either production line could,
by itself, support all U.S. launch needs. The GAO
predicted that this redundancy decision will drive
EELV program costs up from $18 billion to $31 billion.
Clearly, "competition" isn't saving the taxpayers any
money!!
- Ed Kyle
Brian Thorn
>I think Boeing did this comparison several years ago
>and decided to keep Delta II and cancel Delta IV Light
>(I'm assuming that is what you mean by "small upper
>stage"). But even a Delta IV Light would have 1.5
>times or so more dry mass than a Delta 7920, so the
>odds are that it would have higher marginal costs.
Is dry mass relevant, though? Since Delta II uses nine solids, and
there is no such thing as an unfueled solid, its hard to figure out
the bird's dry mass. But a fueled Delta IV-Lite (guessing about PAM as
an upper stage) would seem to compare favorably to a fueled nine-solid
Delta II (especially II-H).
>On the other hand, if the argument is that the
>bigger EELV vehicles are so flexible and wonderful
>that they can handle the Delta II class payloads,
>then, since the EELVs duplicate each other and
>would still be underutilized even with the Delta II
>payloads, why not shut down *two* production lines
>and just keep one EELV?
Well, the two EELVs have a little commonality, at least in the RL-10
engine that they just don't share with Delta II. So there should be
some cost savings there by getting rid of Delta II-specific hardware.
And don't forget the launch facilities. Delta II is still using the
ancient Complex 17, whereas the two EELVs have brand-spanking-new
launch facilities at the Cape and Delta IV is taking over the much
more modern SLC-6 at VAFB (though Atlas 5 is taking over another
ancient pad at VAFB). I think this all points to Delta II being the
third-runner-up in cost and efficiency.
>I think the latter option is where we're heading.
I disagree. Even with major budget crunching threatening its pet
programs (F-22 and F-35) and badly needed transports (V-22 and more
C-17s) the Air Force doesn't even seem to be considering shutting down
one of the EELVs. Even when Boeing got caught cheating with LockMart
proprietary data to win EELV contracts, the Air Force *still* didn't
kill Delta IV when by all rights they could have. There just is no
rational argument that one of the EELVs will be dropped anytime in the
near future.
>All three production lines are going to be under
>one roof soon. If Delta II is shut down, and it
>seems the pressure is on to shut it down, then
>this co-production setup, where the Alliance will
>supposedly pick the best vehicle for each payload,
>will soon find itself picking only the better of
>the two EELVs (and I think we all know which one
>it is) over and over again. They won't have to
>shut down one of the EELV lines. It will just
>stop running by default.
And be available if someone wants it in the future, sort of like
Airbus' A340, which they can make as long as they're making A330s.
Brian
Brian Thorn
>Don't get me wrong. I think that both EELV designs
>are remarkable achievements. But I also think that
>one of them is better than the other.
Agreed, although we haven't seen the -Heavy version yet of the other
one and it too could suddenly develop complications that didn't appear
in the core-alone launches.
I think that the problems seen so far in the weaker of the two EELV
entries is due to it being an offering by a company which hasn't been
in the large-launcher business since Saturn V, and it being an almost
entirely new vehicle (the name notwithstanding) compared to somewhat
more heritage hardware in the other EELV from a company that has been
constantly building large ELVs since the mid-60s.. And I think for
this reason, the Air Force is giving it the benefit of the doubt in
the hope that the bugs will be worked out eventually (none of them
have been catastrophic yet, remember) And the low-launch rate is
western-worldwide... even the vaunted Ariane 5 has been moribund this
year. And a big part of the weaker EELV's low launch rate was the need
to spend most of 2004 prepping for the first -Heavy mission, something
the other EELV entry didn't have to worry about.
Brian
Kim Keller
> Nevertheless, he has been saying for quite a while that NASA should *do*
> *something.* O'Keefe did not.
Oh? You're telling me that the White House fashioned this vision in a
vacuum? That's not what Sietzen/Cowan indicated.
> He was quite clear beforehand that NASA should *do* *something* and that
> SDV was a good way to do it.
I wonder if you'd be this in love with the idea if it wasn't your meal
ticket?
Kim Keller
> Yeah, and you're paying into a trillion dollars a year for Social
> Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Set some priorities. Direct your rage
> appropriately.
I try to pick targets that are more susceptible to be cancellation. Enjoy
your paycheck while it lasts.
Kim Keller
> Whatever, Kim. You've developed the anger of OM, but not the wit.
I'm not angry. I just don't think astronauts are demonstrating such great
bravery. There are hundreds of thousands of people, myself included, who
would ride that stack. They might be gamblers, but they're not overly
brave - they just wanna go to space and they'll ride what gets them there.
BTW, I find it tremendously hilarious that you're in love with this blatant
pork/jobs/tax abuse project. This is obviously your meal ticket, but it's
one purchased at the expense of the American people. What will your
republican fiscal-conservative friends say?
Scott Lowther
>"Scott Lowther" <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in message
>news:NleMe.4624$j21...@news01.roc.ny...
>
>
>>Whatever, Kim. You've developed the anger of OM, but not the wit.
>>
>>
>
>I'm not angry. I just don't think astronauts are demonstrating such great
>bravery. There are hundreds of thousands of people, myself included, who
>would ride that stack. They might be gamblers, but they're not overly
>brave - they just wanna go to space and they'll ride what gets them there.
>
>
Ypu assume that someone is a pussy if they prefer to take the safer,
more reliable ride?
>BTW, I find it tremendously hilarious that you're in love with this blatant
>pork/jobs/tax abuse project. This is obviously your meal ticket, but it's
>one purchased at the expense of the American people. What will your
>republican fiscal-conservative friends say?
>
>
See, that's what I'm talking about. Rather than rational discourse, you
go for personal attacks, without any actual understanding of the other
person or their position.
Scott Lowther
>>He was quite clear beforehand that NASA should *do* *something* and that
>>SDV was a good way to do it.
>>
>>
>
>I wonder if you'd be this in love with the idea if it wasn't your meal
>ticket?
>
As EELV obviously is yours?
I'm "in love" with whatever will get us there, Kim.
Scott Lowther
Wait. So... you are more upset about programs that cost effectively
nothing, if they employ people you don't like.... rather than vast
programs that really drain the economy?
Jeff Findley
> Kim Keller wrote:
> >I try to pick targets that are more susceptible to be cancellation. Enjoy
> >your paycheck while it lasts.
>
> Wait. So... you are more upset about programs that cost effectively
> nothing, if they employ people you don't like.... rather than vast
> programs that really drain the economy?
You're missing the point. It's not what you, Kim, or I want to spend the
money that matters. What matters is what the politicians are willing to
cut. History has shown that they are very unwilling to even talk about
cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, let alone actually *cut*
anything from their budgets. Nothing gets the AARP on your case faster than
talking about cutting these programs.
Kim Keller
> Wait. So... you are more upset about programs that cost effectively
> nothing, if they employ people you don't like.... rather than vast
> programs that really drain the economy?
Your program does not cost effectively nothing. Your program will cost too
much to be sustainable. Your program will lead to NASA repeating the
mistakes of Apollo with the net result that we will be no closer to
exploring the planets in 2020 than we were in 1973. My feelings have nothing
to do with the people who are employed by them. What, you think I don't like
you? Awww, c'mon Scott, give us a hug!
Sure, I'm opposed to the huge waste that government inflicts on us. But this
particular waste, namely shuttle-derived, frustrates me greatly because I
see where it will inevitably lead. I'm frustrated that 2001 has come and
gone and there are no spinning hotels in the sky and no shuttles to vast
bases on the Moon. I'm frustrated that it is entirely likely that I will die
before men walk on Mars. And why is that likely? Because some passionate
dunderhead at HQ has a preconceived notion of what is needed to do the job.
And he's wrong.
Kim Keller
> Ypu assume that someone is a pussy if they prefer to take the safer, more
> reliable ride?
Did I say that? Why, no, I didn't.
> See, that's what I'm talking about. Rather than rational discourse, you go
> for personal attacks, without any actual understanding of the other person
> or their position.
Hey, this is Usenet. You want rantional discourse? Talk to your shrink.
I understand your position. You like the Shaft because it gives you a job.
Kim Keller
> As EELV obviously is yours?
But see, that's the neat part - it's *not* my meal ticket. Whether VSE
chooses shuttle-derived, EELV or even Estes has absolutely no effect on
my job. *Both* EELVs could go away tomorrow and I'd still have a job. My
argument against the Shaft deals strictly with the intellectually dishonest
way it was
chosen and the bloated price tag it will carry, while cheaper options
exist that can be just as safe and constitute a better deal for the
taxpayer (and the agencies using them).
> I'm "in love" with whatever will get us there, Kim.
Yeah, well, it doesn't sound that way to me. I doubt you'd feel that way if
EELVs edged out the Shaft.
Pat Flannery
Anthony Frost wrote:
>
>"One source indicates that one of the capsules was 009P, on its third
>launch and second flight to orbit."
>
>009P had had one earlier launch, a launch abort, and (possibly) a third
>flight.
>
They seem to imply that the craft used the same heatshield on all those
flights...which seems pretty unlikely if it was an ablative type
heatshield unless they refurbished it somehow after the flights.
Unlike Soyuz, which jettisons it's heatshield after the parachute opens
to reduce the weight of the capsule and expose the landing rockets, the
TKS VA keeps its heatshield in place till landing, and has its landing
rockets on the base of the parachute shroud lines, similar to the way it
was done on the Voskhod spacecraft.
Pat
Pete Lynn
news:fuSMe.20385$Yx1....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> Sure, I'm opposed to the huge waste that government
> inflicts on us. But this particular waste, namely shuttle-
> derived, frustrates me greatly because I see where it
> will inevitably lead. I'm frustrated that 2001 has come
> and gone and there are no spinning hotels in the sky
> and no shuttles to vast bases on the Moon. I'm
> frustrated that it is entirely likely that I will die before
> men walk on Mars. And why is that likely? Because
> some passionate dunderhead at HQ has a
> preconceived notion of what is needed to do the job.
> And he's wrong.
Yes the preconceived notion of EELV's would be much better. EELV or
SDV, the consumer is just spoilt for choice, assuming they had one.
Until they do, we are not going anywhere. :-(
Pete.
Scott Lowther
>"Scott Lowther" <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in message
>news:KdGMe.4757$j21....@news01.roc.ny...
>
>
>>Ypu assume that someone is a pussy if they prefer to take the safer, more
>>reliable ride?
>>
>>
>
>Did I say that? Why, no, I didn't.
>
>
You implied it.
>
>
>>See, that's what I'm talking about. Rather than rational discourse, you go
>>for personal attacks, without any actual understanding of the other person
>>or their position.
>>
>>
>
>Hey, this is Usenet. You want rantional discourse? Talk to your shrink.
>
>I understand your position. You like the Shaft because it gives you a job.
>
I had a job before the Stick came around, thank you. I like the HLLV
better. I'd like it more if it had *four* RSRMs. Nevertheless, teh Stick
is a better concept for an Apollo CSM-launcher than the Delta IV heavy.
Scott Lowther
>
> while cheaper options
>exist that can be just as safe
>
"Can be." the Shuttle SRM has flown hundreds of times, one failure. The
DIV core has flown I believe less than a dozen times, and failed I
belive three times (all three times on *one* launch).
> and constitute a better deal for the
>taxpayer
>
DIVH costs, what, $300 million or so per launch? And it'll have to be
beefed up substantially to serve in the required role... up to nine
solid rocket boosters strapped to it (Castors or GEMs). This will jack
up price both via development and recurring cost, and tke a whack at
it's already lean reliability.
>(and the agencies using them).
>
>
>
>>I'm "in love" with whatever will get us there, Kim.
>>
>>
>
>Yeah, well, it doesn't sound that way to me.
>
Imagine my concern.
Pat Flannery
Kim Keller wrote:
>"Scott Lowther" <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in message
>news:QeGMe.4758$j21....@news01.roc.ny...
>
>
>>As EELV obviously is yours?
>>
>>
>
>But see, that's the neat part - it's *not* my meal ticket. Whether VSE
>chooses shuttle-derived, EELV or even Estes has absolutely no effect on
>my job. *Both* EELVs could go away tomorrow and I'd still have a job.
>
>
>
(Cut to Estes engineers looking at drawing of "Z" class engine.)
"Okay...now you tell NASA that they had better use a _lot_ of ejection
wadding on this one!"
(cut to NASA engineers erecting 1000 foot high launch rod on 100 foot
diameter battleship armor steel disk.)
"You think those one thousand AA batteries are going to be something,
wait till you pick up that 180 pound launch safety key- that thing'll
rupture ya...do we have continuity?"
(All the streetlights in Titusville come on.) :-)
Pat
Scott Lowther
>"Scott Lowther" <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in message
>news:vgGMe.4759$j21....@news01.roc.ny...
>
>
>>Wait. So... you are more upset about programs that cost effectively
>>nothing, if they employ people you don't like.... rather than vast
>>programs that really drain the economy?
>>
>>
>
>Your program does not cost effectively nothing.
>
Ten years worth of VSE could fit within a few months of welfare spending.
>Sure, I'm opposed to the huge waste that government inflicts on us. But this
>particular waste, namely shuttle-derived, frustrates me greatly because I
>see where it will inevitably lead.
>
Yes. Technological advancement and inspiring the kiddies. Tragic, that.
Better cancel it now, and help convicne the private investors that space
is so hard and expensive that even the gubmint can't do it.
Reed Snellenberger
news:11g846j...@corp.supernews.com:
And, as the roc egg is loaded into the transparent payload compartment
for the test flight, Big Bertha Thing project director Tony Lance smiles
in satisfaction at a job well done...
--
I was punching a text message into my | Reed Snellenberger
phone yesterday and thought, "they need | GPG KeyID: 5A978843
to make a phone that you can just talk | rsnellenberger
into." Major Thomb | -at-houston.rr.com
Will McLean
Is the one you prefer the one that uses imported Russian engines to
launch payloads that are supposed to include the spysats we use to keep
an eye on the Russians and their friends?
Wil McLean
Ed Kyle
>
> Is the one you prefer the one that uses imported Russian engines to
> launch payloads that are supposed to include the spysats we use to keep
> an eye on the Russians and their friends?
It also has payload fairings made in Switzerland
"http://www.contravesspace.com/" and conical interstage
adapters made by EADS-CASA in Spain.
"http://www.eads.net/frame/lang/en/1024/content/OF00000000400004/3/45/548453.html"
The other EELV has Japanese propellant tanks. And
both EELV builders are considering replacing the
RL-10 upper stages with engines that would largely
be developed and manufactured overseas.
- Ed Kyle
Will McLean
Japan and Spain are allies of the US. Switzerland is famously neutral.
Russia is something else, and could easily be a lot more adversarial
within the lifetime of the launcher.
Will McLean
Jeff Findley
"Pete Lynn" <pe...@peterlynnkites.com> wrote in message
news:9KTMe.3373$FA3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
How about choosing nothing? Buy launch services from the cheapest provider
and get NASA the hell out of the launch business. Surely EELV's would be
used at first, but this at least opens up the possibility that other launch
providers could step up to the plate with lower cost vehicles.
Choosing any shuttle derived vehicle, or even choosing EELV exclusively
(especially specifying only "heavy" and bigger versions), leads NASA down
the same path they took for Saturn V and shuttle. You end up with a system
that flies so little that fixed costs dominate and costs can never drop to
something reasonable.