credit NASA / caption: The Shuttle derived Heavy Lift Vehicle lifts off from KSC
So now we see that some parts of the media are getting all excited about the Shuttle derived Heavy Lift Vehicle. This presentation is, Hyperbola thinks, from the NASA technical team that is reviewing the original work carried out by the Space Shuttle Programme (SSP) office. The presentation contains material previously seen by Hyperbola from briefings that were provided prior to the 17 June Augustine meeting presentation but not included within that presentation
NASA's SSP manager John Shannon told Flightglobal last week that a NASA team and a Aerospace Corporation team would look over the work started by SSP. Notes from the interview that were not used for the Flight International magazine spaceflight page HLV special, now online, will be posted on this blog soon
No doubt lots of fun will be had by various individuals leaking material to various journalists over the weeks and months to come, and all augmented by the grapevine. While HLV certainly hits a host of buttons what should be remembered is that it doesn't give NASA the same capability to go to the Moon as Constellation, the HLV crewed version has big questions hovering over it, as big as Ares I crew launch vehicle's oscillations, such as external tank proximity, and even the cargo version will still need to meet International Space Station human rating requirements
on July 8, 2009 3:52 AM | Reply
.
not a good choice... I'll publish soon an article to explain in detail why (in my opinion) it isn't a so good option
.
just posted my suggestion #11 for the Human Space Flight Plans Committee and NASA:
"don't launch the [dangerous] Ares 1-X from KSC but from a DESERT place"
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/045suggestions11.html
.
on July 8, 2009 8:17 AM | Reply
Big questions, as you mentioned.
The SSMEs are thrown away. This immediately means a small, fixed number of HLVs can fly until more SSMEs are produced, or the expendable version is developed. There is NO quick (NASA) redesign of something so critical as a main propulsion element: the J-2X is proof of this. As the presentation says, human crew is TBD--any safety advantages over the shuttle would likely be small.
However, in the category of should-have-beens, one of these would have been wonderful in the 90s. It would have provided an important capability for continued flight even after orbiter mishaps (Columbia), an important testbed for new technologies (5-seg SRBs, ET sizing variations, J-2X upper stage, RS-68A replacement or expendable SSMEs), and perhaps even provide a framework for a Jupiter- or Ares V follow-on. All wishful thinking, given the funding levels and the loud insistence of robotic science vs. manned program camps (neither of which will sacrifice for booster development).
Many of these advantages apply to having a separate cargo booster and crew rocket.
on July 8, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply
I'd say the real threat of this Not-The-Shuttle-C (NTSC) isn't to the Ares I crew launch vehicle, but to the Ares V cargo launch vehicle.
on July 8, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply
.
today NASA has successful tested MY (February 10, 2007) idea of a (safer and better) "underside-LAS"
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/019mlas.html
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/020newLAS.html
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11053.msg432447#msg432447
MY "underside-LAS" (now called NASA "MLAS"...) is MUCH BETTER than the Orion's "Eiffel Tower" LAS
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/029eiffeltowerlas.html
.
on July 8, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply
Agreed. A great ideal for the 90s when it could have allowed a better lift capability for a 90s time-line mission to the moon. Mostly is it a confirmation that Ares V will not survive its huge cost - and Ares 1 should not survive at all.
The Direct J-120 is better for today. I have no relationship with that group, I just like the plan much better then Shuttle C or Shuttle C - want to be. I seems to me that NASA simply will not acknowledge that Direct is better.
The ideal that Ares V is needed to go to moon is totally bogus. We could go to the moon today using the Shuttles and EELVs. What is missing is a plan to do so. In fact, what is missing is any plan at all that is workable, sustainable and affordable.
Anyone interested in a job as NASA Administrator? You couldn't do any worse then any of the others we've have.
on July 8, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply
@Marsium
the ENTIRE Direct/Jupiter concept is seriously flawed, as explained in this "14 points" article:
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/046directdesignflaws.html
also (just see the video about Direct at the HSF conference) it needs many changes to the ET and ORBITAL REFUEL for lunar missions, that is NOT a good idea, as explained in this article:
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/045suggestions09.html
.
on July 8, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply
"We could go to the moon today using the Shuttles and EELVs. What is missing is a plan to do so."
true, infact, China seems want to accomplish a lunar mission only with its Long March 5 (ready to fly in 2014)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_March_5
... that has the SAME payload to LEO of a (ready available) Delta IV Heavy...
.
on July 8, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply
Next week is the twinkie launcher. That's the one which is going to solve all their problems. Forget Direct 1.0, Direct 2.0, Direct 3.0, Ares V, side mounting, diagonal mounting, upside down mounting, air launching, EELV. Twinkies R the future.
on July 9, 2009 3:29 AM | Reply
Mr Coppinger,
While SD-HLV or Shuttle-C is not as "Capable" as Ares 5, trust me, Ares-5 is a crap wagon on powerpoint. The concept is deeply flawed, and been proposed by deeply flawed people. The team that screwed the pooch on Ares 1, is not capable of a better job with Ares 5. The Ares team is already talking about needing a 3rd stage on the Ares 5 and they aren't even at conceptuals. The Ares 5 is already flirting with the VAB height limit and it's still on powerpoint.
Shuttle-C has the benefit that the bulk o fthe hardware is real and requires no changes, while it's a little small, i'm sure they can cope somehow.
Do not make the assumption of insisting Shuttle-C be man rated for the station. if needed, a small tug can go transfer packages from a cargo ship over to ISS or even serve to ferry the cargo module intact.
several tugs already exist.
on July 10, 2009 1:43 AM | Reply
The HLV looks like a reasonably face-saving way for NASA to drop Ares 1. I prefer the Direct architecture, but the HLV looks like it could gradually turn into it. The HLV looks like it might be quicker and cheaper to develop.
The side mounted configuration is a kludge, but at least it is well known from the Shuttle.
I would be very surprised to see the Orion capsule fly on anything other than an EELV. I strongly doubt that it would ever be flown on the HLV, but I could be wrong.
Why does this website keep plugging for the Ares 1? It was not a good idea in the first place. It is rapidly turning into NASA's own Spruce Goose.
on July 10, 2009 4:00 AM | Reply
IT is very , very DEAD (it just doesn't know it yet....say about August, it WILL find out it is terminal, and the plug will be pulled...Stay tuned!)