Buzz Aldrin's Take On What Needs to be Done - Update

...and, equally as important, the existing shuttle work force.

Buzz Aldrin said that? If so, another idol revealed to be a false demi-god.

Only the winged orbiter is replaced with a payload canister with the three engines mounted at its base."

Are the three engines to return to Earth? If not, what functional advantage does this Shuttle-derived system have over an up-rated EELV?

Equally important, use the shuttle work force. That's great, but as Bolden said 90% of the work force is contractors. Doesn't ATK build the SRB's for the shuttle and was also going to build Ares V ?
If so, what is the difference between ATK building an Ares V or SRB's for a shuttle derived heavy lift?
Wouldn't they both be using the same contractor, work force, facilities, etc...
If that's true, then I guess he would be OK with Ares V...

I have been working with Buzz on these messages and can help explain his views here. The advantage of such a system-all cargo sidemount-is that it is a heavy lifter that has the least need for changes to the existing Shuttle facilities and minimizes displacement of the workforce. That is one of its advantages over a bigger EELV-which would need substantial development and new facilities for launch. The sidemount all-cargo Shuttle is envisioned by Buzz as an interim step to the day when a truly heavy lift vehicle using new reusable flyback boosters, new engines and new upper stages could be introduced. Continuous production of Shuttle hardware such as solid motors, tanks, and SSMEs (they would not be reused in the sidemount design) under his view could make for an easier transition from the existing, manned Shuttle fleet. And, lastly Buzz points out that anything that makes the U.S. less reliant upon Russian access to space until an all-commercial U.S. crew system becomes operational is a good thing.

And of course inline trumps sidemount in overall costs, speed of deployment, and capabilities...

One day Buzz will catch up and find out why sidemount lost out to the NLS... not the least reason of which is that sidemount requires the unneeded expense of keeping separate lines open for both the cargo pod and the ET.

He's not ignorant, of course... both his Aquila and Starbooster commercial designs are inline SDLVs in their initial phases... but it seems probable that someone gave him the erroneous impression that sidemount somehow saves time and money that it just does not save.

Anything to avoid a DIRECT route! This is what the Russians did with their Energia booster in 1986-9; only in reverse. They launched an unmanned payload first and then the "Shuttleski" Buran. It was canceled through lack of funding...

Wow, from the picture shown above, I didn't realize the sidemount would be so far forward. At supersonic speeds, isn't the flow between the ET and sidemount going to slow down due to the shock structure between the ET and sidemount noses, and, thus, result in increased temperature? (The shuttle nose is further back, seems to be smaller and more pointy than the sidemount nose, and the shape of the shuttle nose directs the shock outward. All together, less issues.) Was a thermal aerodynamic analysis done on this configuration?

A Shuttle-C sidemount type configuration would give us useful cargo capability soonest and with least costly change to infrastructure. That's why I like the idea. I admit that I am surprised that we don't see more support for it.

If the wisdom truly is that cargo and crew should be separated then this seems to me the way to go for the cargo side of the equation. It would least give us similar up-mass capability to what we have now. The down-mass capability probably wouldn't be there without significant development but I'm not convinced that down-mass is an immediate issue at this point.

A sidemount wouldn't give us the very heavy-lift nearly everyone wants but it could fill the gap while a very heavy-lift system is being developed.

As for the crew launch part of the equation, that issue is being debated and several options seem to be opening up. But it shouldn't affect the cargo side of the issue.

Part of Aldrin's plan is not entirely clear to me.

IIRC, his latest plan that I saw (the one in the This Week In Space March 6th interview) calls for a modified Orion for crew transport, in addition to a mission module\hab nicknamed "XM".

What modifications for Orion did he have in mind? No LAS, float ring, and no heat shield so it can be launched unmanned and need not re-enter?

So now the only plan that doesn't have Orion is the Obama one? CxP, DIRECT, Augustine Flexible Path, and Buzz's plan all have (a version of) it?

The command and control segment for a proposed LEO to lunar orbit taxi/ferry might be an ideal use for a modified Orion. It would not need the re-entry systems and need not even be conical in shape.

It seems to me that Orion is set to prosper under the new architecture. A non reentry variant as mentioned above, a stripped down light variant to use as a LEO taxi/lifeboat from the ISS or other orbital facility, and the original Orion to be offered in support to missions that may require the beefed up systems, such as a combination control module and lifeboat for an asteroid or lagrange point mission.

I think they are going to do quite well.

The sidemount all-cargo Shuttle is envisioned by Buzz as an interim step to the day when a truly heavy lift vehicle using new reusable flyback boosters, new engines and new upper stages could be introduced.

So you're asking for both Shuttle-C with non-reusable main engines and a different, all new heavy lifter?

NASA is supposed to get development funding for both missiles?

And, lastly Buzz points out that anything that makes the U.S. less reliant upon Russian access to space until an all-commercial U.S. crew system becomes operational is a good thing.

But does the USA have to have a heavy lift launch missile -- something bigger than the current Delta IV heavy or the Shuttle system itself -- to launch new crew vehicles or Shuttle cargo bay-sized payloads to LEO?

Lastly, I have a suspicion that cargo-only Shuttle-B or -C proposals have a hidden agenda, which is life extension of Shuttle Orbiter operations at least until until an all-commercial U.S. crew system becomes operational. if that's the real intention, might as well come out and say so.

Or why not build a side mounted Shuttle II Orbiter with escape pod and sturdier thermal protection system, if solid rocket boosters, external tanks, etc. are going to stay in production?

Buzz has no hidden agenda. His stated goal is the human colonization of Mars. The idea behind Shuttle extension and evolution is not to fly the manned Shuttles forever but extend them for a relatively brief period so the cargo design can be developed.And he would develop the bigger heavy lifter from the start if the technology and money was available.

Frank Sietzen said...

"Buzz has no hidden agenda."

He does, however, have a vested business interest in sidemount SDLVs...

zapkitty said, "And of course inline trumps sidemount in overall costs, speed of deployment, and capabilities..."

This is interesting. I thought the sidemount concept was the better option because of ET load mounting, CG, and other structural concerns. How can an inline configuration be less costly and available sooner than a sidemount configuration which in many ways emulates the loading that the system was designed for.

I'd be very happy to believe that the inline version is cheaper and could be available sooner since it is, in most people's opinion, the superior concept. But how can it be so?

Could you really put a massive stage/capsule on top of the existing ET and engines at the base of the ET
without making major structural changes ?

I think this needs a serious assessment together with the engine type, vs a Shuttle_C configuration. Shuttle C could keep the current Shuttle payload interfaces, which means existing pallets, ISS modules, etc, would have compatible interfaces.

It is not so. The inline vehicle Buzz advocates would have flyback winged boosters, a new transfer stage upper stage and new liquid rocket engines, a truly technologically advanced heavy lift launch vehicle. The development of such technologies need to be initiated now, but will take some years of dedicated funding to make mature enough to use in the SD HLV. In the meanttime, as a way to help save jobs and make maximum use of the present-day Shuttle facilities, a sidemounted launcher is a interim step forward, as it would be accompanied by a national commitment to build a true SD HLV capable of lifting elements of an interplanetary future spacecraft, such as the operational cycling spacecraft, Exploration Module, or an aerobrake. All of that doesn't make sense if human colonization of the moons of Mars and then Mars itself isn't the national civil space objective. You don't need heavy lift if you aren't going anywhere. If on the other hand we are, as a nation, then something needs to be done NOW that helps preserve the workforce that would have migrated to Constellation. As of now, they will all be laid off, making future space system development that much more difficult.
Buss asks: why is it good for the nation's economic health to lay off 9,000 contractors if a way can be found to save some of their jobs and set on a path for Mars all at the same time?

Well said.

Buzz asks: why is it good for the nation's economic health to lay off 9,000 contractors if a way can be found to save some of their jobs and set on a path for Mars all at the same time?

Remember many of them are going on unemployment/public welfare. Would you rather give them money for sitting still or a little bit more and have them go to work ?

I wonder how a scaled up X-37 would do as a side-mounted winged booster ?

Miles-there's only one way to find out: TEST IT!
A winged fully reusable fly back first stage?: Shades of the original Shuttle Phase A Study!!! Now, that's what I call going back to the future!!!

One giant leap for Buzz, one small step from DIRECT

I was sorta thinking that Buzz was getting closer to being on the right track, except I'm missing the "manned" part of the NASA-run hsf plan?

hey, is Buzz just tryin to suck up to Florida Dancin' voters?-)

It's pretty obvious really. He's suggesting that NASA launch something, say an EDS/Transhab combo on a SDHLV-Sidemount and then send up a crew on a commercial crew taxi. They transfer and carry out the mission. I get the impression that this (apart from variations on the HLV theme) was the basic archetecture towards which the Augustine Commission report was directing our attention. This gets over the human-rating issue by launching the mission vehicle on a non-human-rated BDR and then send up the crew on a smaller and far more refined crew launcher.

IIRC, Bush I's SEI basically advocated a specialist transfer vehicle supported by Earth-to-LEO crew taxis (the Shuttle in that case).

"-there's only one way to find out: TEST IT!"

I hope that is not the approach we are going to use. It costs a lot of time and money to develop these new systems and there should be some careful design and analysis before we get into building, flying and testing.

In the case of the Shuttle ET, it is a well known structure. It should be a pretty straightforward initial analysis to assess whether the exsiting structure can handle the engines, thrust and structure on the aft end and a heavy stage and payload on the top.

Not to be a stick in the mud, but Shuttle was always expensive, difficult to maintain and to launch because of its complexities. The SRBs were one aspect that was pretty benign and easy to deal with at the pad. Liquid fueled fly-back boosters likely increase the complexity. Its likely we would want to use dumb lower tech main engines rather than the SSMEs, for that same reason. We probably want to go with an engine that is less expensive to manufacture and which requires no recovery, refurbishment and which requires no between flight maintenance.

I am all for Shuttle derived, but lets use our knowledge of what cost a lot of money and reduce the costs for the future. The big liquid fueled booster for Shuttle was thrown out in 1972 for multiple reasons, and costs and complexity were two of them.

"NASA Needs a Clear Destination for Space Exploration, Experts Say, space.com"

I'd like to see any, or all of these people, Spudis, Zubrin....to lay out a roadmap of what needs to be done and in which order in order to get us top the moon, or Mars, or wherever we want as a possible destination.

If nothing else, Constellation should be a lesson; in the NASA government bureaucracy, you cannot plan out a fifty year development program and hope to stick to it.

Your best bet is to identify the capabilities that are needed for various missions, and work to incremental implementation plans, probably each no longer than about five years, to build up your capabilities.

Shuttle was basically designed and the initial vehicles built within five years of the program go ahead. A lot of discussion went into settling on the configuration.

Some of the basic elements of ISS were well defined within the first five years of the program and within 8 or 9 years much of the US hardware was in manufacturing. The ISS modules are an excellent model of adaptability and flexibility. ISS evolved over a generation, 25 years, and 5 presidents, yet its basic building blocks are just about the same as envisioned at the start.

Mr. Zubrin and Dr. Spudis have been arguing for their respective destinations for many years, yet the only progress we've been making is on a low earth orbit long duration facility. Lets figure out how best to use it, and starty working on some off the next pieces. We don't need to decide on Moon or Mars today.

This gets over the human-rating issue by launching the mission vehicle on a non-human-rated BDR and then send up the crew on a smaller and far more refined crew launcher.

Why not get over the human-rating issue by continuing to launch passengers as Shuttle Orbiter passengers? That would sure save a lot of jobs for the Kentucky Fried Space Center Community. :0) !!

If Shuttle system components stay in production for a side-mounted Shuttle-C, this idea will inevitably suggest itself: Why not continue Shuttle operations, maybe build a far more refined Orbiter Mark II Version 2.0, or a sidemounted Oldsmobile Orion crew capsule?

This idea doesn't need to be Buzz Aldrin's or anyone's planned hidden agenda. These thoughts will, however, inevitably come to peoples' minds if NASA goes with Shuttle-C.

Ben, you are on the right track-except that we hope that at least one commercial crew taxi is a runway landing winged lifting body. The only role for a space capsule in Buzz's architecture is on the exploration module missions docked to the module and used for crew return or aerobraking testing. Capsules as taxis that fly often are very limited in their utility and require little of the highly maneuverable capabilities that lifting bodies offer.

I know that Buzz has long favoured using the HL-20 lifting body as a crew vehicle.

However, there is no doubt that winged and lifting body CRVs are more complex machines than even land-recovery capsules. Cross-range is really not an issue when there only a few runways in the world that can accept the vehicle and when North America has a nice, big desert flight range into which you can drop your spacecraft.

In any case, it will be some time before flight rates make the cost savings from a reusable CRV outweigh the refurbishment costs. Right now, IMHO at least, I think that the 'KISS' approach of using a ballistic capsule is wiser and likely to be more cost efective.

FWIW, I am personally a fan of fully-integrated archetectures where you have the minimum possible required launches, including launching the crew seperately only if absolutely necessary. I think that this is more cost effective at this stage. Only later with greater flight rates and even possibly a fixed destination on the Moon or in cis-Lunar space would a reusable transfer vehicle really come into its own.

Ben, with a blunt bodied capsule as taxi, what do you do with the service module, which follows the steep capsule entry and should it not burn up, lands nearby? Plus the idea of the G forces during entry and touchdown seem hostile to fragile commercial samples returning from a space station laboratory. And, lastly, no capsule shape can accomodate a payload bay architecture that the Shuttle history has shown greatly increases the utility of the crew-cargo-manipulator usefullness. No capsule could have serviced the Hubble Space Telescope, unless you would be willing to discard the servicing equipment that couldn't fit back inside the capsule. Yes, you are correct that a winged lifting shape is the most complex planform to reenter. But surely a technologically advanced thermal protection system could raise the safety and flexibility of the lifting vehicle. Are we doomed to fly capsules forever? Wasn't among the CEV's problems was it had two distinct requirements: taxi services up and back to ISS plus a more complex cislunar need, all in the same basic vehicle. You might not require wings and wheels to go to the moon, but you don't need "Apollo on steroids" to just repeat Gemini style flights, either...

"The advantage of such a system-all cargo sidemount-is that it is a heavy lifter that has the least need for changes to the existing Shuttle facilities..."

Uh, while the VAB and shuttle processing facility is still unchanged, there is only pad 39-A left. Constellation already started hacking up pad 39-B and we have a pile of scrap metal on one of the MLPs.
And even though Michoud is still there, it will take 2 years to get the first new tank built according to John Shannon.

It's too bad no one is working on a HL-20 based vehicle now. The proposed model I saw on a HL-20 website was listed at about 24,000 lbs. One of the original launchers considered was the Titan 3C. That weight is within the Falcon 9's range, is it not?

Of course, they haven't even launched a Falcon 9 yet. It took them three tries to get the Falcon 1 up so if they can get the Falcon 9 up in that many tries or less I will be encouraged.

Like I said, it's too bad no one is actively working on a HL-20 derived vehicle. Unless someone is.

@moonman

Re: "NASA Needs a Clear Destination for Space Exploration, Experts Say"

Notice how the only thing the experts agree on is that a destination is needed, but not on the destination. This is why I think the fixation on a destination is a trap for NASA, and one that it willfully blunders into again and again.

As much as I am a Moonatic, I much prefer this new approach of bringing a variety of tools to technological readiness and feeding that into the private sector. A few good ones to start out with are fuel depots (incl. Murphy Bags), solar power satellite testbeds, space-only vehicles, tugboats, freeflyer platforms, various propulsion technologies, microgravity production run methodologies, and others.

These are things that NASA has known about for decades, but in their fixation on a "destination" they spurn doing them because the technologies aren't needed for the optimized plan developed for the destination du jour.

Same thing with the fixation on heavy lift. There's isn't enough demand to orbit for the mass capabilities of an HLV to make it worthwhile. Worse, it would compete with private launchers for marginal payloads that are at the upper end of the lift capabilities of the private sector. The point of having NASA, the DoD and the private sector (and international partners) all use the existing stable of rockets is so that more of them will be produced. The more that are produced the less each individual one will cost to a customer. As the price comes down more demand is attracted as the drop in price closes more and more business cases.

Additionally, by increasing the launch rate of quasi-expendable vehicles you're increasing the market for a substitute for all that waste. Two solutions are possible from this push: (1) An RLV will finally enter the market and take out at least one of the existing rocket producers, or (2) there will be a market push for consolidation into larger payloads, and demand for an HLV will appear.

Furthermore, there is barely enough risk capital for insurance on the existing launch vehicles. If you can barely pull together the risk pool for a 15-20 metric tonne payload, how are you going to find the capital to insure 100-150 metric tonnes of expensive high tech machinery? It's only by growing the number of successful launches of existing rockets that capital will be drawn to insuring increasing amounts of payload to orbit.

NASA has much to offer the American private sector in terms of nailing down a number of technologies and giving it a hand up to orbit. We're entering a time when entrepreneurialism is going to be seen as increasingly important for growing the economy out of its current doldrums. Luckily, the up-and-coming (maybe, finally) Gen X is quite the entrepreneurial generation,and both Gens X & Y have grown up bathed in technology. Now is the time to make the technologies of the space sector a growth engine for the economy, and NASA is ideally positioned to help make that happen.

If not now, when?

"then send up a crew on a commercial crew taxi"

ok, so Buzz ain't goin' for the Florida Dancin vote
cuz that's a deal-breaker & obviously bassackwards

I tend to agree with your analysis at least at a macro level.

I do think that in the interest of our current knowledge-base on Shuttle, and jobs, that it would be advisable to develop the follow-on HLV to Shuttle now.

I think the key is for NASA to begin to develop transportation and servicing capabilities beyond LEO so that high energy throw away capsules are not required at least for deep space missions.

The last piece is that the US government has to invest in commercial development of a low cost LON orbital capability for manned and unmanned transport to LEO.

With those 3 elements, the rest becomes possible and affordable. Without those elements, we will never advance beyond the status quo.

Disagreement about the long term goal sidetracks us from perfecting the means. Perfecting the means is the problem - NASA's problem.

Why is there a need for LON for a manned spacecraft? ISS rescue? The problem becomes development of such a spacecraft AND a launch vehicle together.

The goal has got to be a way to fly routinely into orbit at costs not a lot higher than it what it takes to go trans-oceanic. Every time someone tries to do this they make the mistake of developing a more sophisticated system like the SSME, which requires much higher numbers of operations personnel; much more expensive systems.

NASA should be looking at how to build an low cost system. Along with reduced costs it should be able to be launched with minimal ground operations in a relatively short time.

"Ben, with a blunt bodied capsule as taxi, what do you do with the service module, which follows the steep capsule entry and should it not burn up, lands nearby? Plus the idea of the G forces during entry and touchdown seem hostile to fragile commercial samples returning from a space station laboratory."

Well Frank, since the only two return vehicles currently either in development or proposed, the Dragon and the ATV evolution with the return capsule (ARV?) both use blunt-ended RVs, I assume that most actual aerospace engineers don't consider this a serious problem. Blunt-ended RVs with expendable service modules have been used by all HSF agencies for decades without the disposal of the SM being an issue. I thus suspect that it is a seriously exaggerated risk. As Orion was to be used in much the same way, I assume that the guys at JSC and LockMart designing the vehicle didn't consider the issue a red flag either.

I remain sceptical that it is impossible to develop a land recovery HL system that did not minimise g-forces. Especially given that we already have airbag systems that can minimise g-loadings during impacts in mass-production cars.

"And, lastly, no capsule shape can accomodate a payload bay architecture that the Shuttle history has shown greatly increases the utility of the crew-cargo-manipulator usefullness. No capsule could have serviced the Hubble Space Telescope, unless you would be willing to discard the servicing equipment that couldn't fit back inside the capsule."

Don't forget, lifting body crew vehicles, even ones as large as the HL-series, would also need expendable work/cargo hauler areas that would be dumped after every mission. You would have to be willing to build and deploy something the size of the STS orbiter to get the ability to return the RMS, the work area and/or an MPLM-sized or larger payload to Earth.

FWIW, an Orion/SSPDM, as suggested by the DIRECT team, could have serviced the Hubble Space Telescope. The only difference would have been that such a mission would have been incapable of returning the removed instruments to Earth for post-mission analysis (although smaller stuff such as gyroscopes could have been brought back in the Orion itself). This would have been a shame, but hardly something to make the mission a pointless endeavour.

Ben, re the airbags, google the Kistler K-1 fully reusable launcher that Musk helped to deep-six in favour of his own inferior Space X offerings.

"I assume that most actual aerospace engineers don't consider this a serious problem."

We've been using blunt body reentry vehicles since the beginning of the space program so no doubt it can be done. But as far as G levels, vibration, etc., the engineers are not the people who need to be setting the requirements. That should come from the medical, physiological and experiment communities. One of the problems with Constellation was that they never fully evaluated or adopted the requirements imposed by the communities that needed to use the system.

"I remain sceptical that it is impossible to develop a land recovery HL system that did not minimise g-forces."

The Apollo block II couches could handle land landings through the use of internal attenuation. It was most critical during certain off the pad or low altitude aborts, depending on wind speed and direction. The Russians use soft landing rockets. Most crewmen have said that landing in a capsule is nothing like a soft landing.

SM disposal, particularly for returns from deep space are generally not a safety issue. The modules generally are designed to be lightweight, which is one reason why they tend to come apart and burn up when they hit the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds. The problem is that the more hardware that is in the disposable SM, the more that needs to be built for every mission. It drives up costs.

"You would have to be willing to build and deploy something the size of the STS orbiter to get the ability to return the RMS..."

The Shuttle cargo bay was sized specifically to handle payloads like the Hubble, and that approximate size, and payloads like 14-15 ft diameter, 50 foot long modules. The Station Hab and Lab modules shrunk because of orbital inclination and mass of a module fully loaded. There were several designs which looked at smaller and shorter cargo bays, but Station modules and Hubble-sized payloads determined the Shuttle's capacity.

And unlike in Constellation, where both Ares and Orion ends were sized first and subsequently assessed to see whether masses were compatible, and then redesigned multiple times. Shuttle established the size of the payload bay first. Payload bay size, re-entry G level, and cross range requirements established the need for the Orbiter delta wing configuration, and the configuration of the Orbiter then established the size and mass of the Orbiter.

Subsequently the determination was made of the SSME design and performance characteristics, and from this the ET size was determined. Then the SRBs size was determined to make up the difference in first stage performance. It was done sequentially, and because of anticipated mass growth, the SRB's maintained some additional capability for propellant loading. It took a matter of months to do the computations and make the trades that resulted in determination of the Shuttle size and configuration. They went from the two fully manned Shuttle stages to the configuration we've been flying for 30 years within less than 18 months. There were debates of several issues which resulted in the configuration we know being adopted. This included size, complexity of ground and orbital operations, and expense. They did not finalize the design until OMB and NASA agreed upon the costs and budget.

In the case of Constellation, requirements were changing for several years, configurations of both payload and booster were changing, and OMB never accepted that design issues or costs were resolved, even after 5 years.

www.dunnspace.com/leo_on_the_cheap.htm

read, and inwardly digest! I wish NASA and the Aerospace would do likewise; but that's why there are the likes of Musk as the only alternative.

This one is interesting:

34. Develop plans for phasing out the Space Shuttle by the end of the
1990s-sooner if possible. The oppressive weight of the Shuttle’s annual oper-
ating budget is hamstringing NASA’s ability to prosecute other important
projects. The deployment of a US space station will diminish the Shuttle’s
utility to almost zero unless it iscrews to and from the station.

and plus ca change...

To blunt political protests about the cancellation of the ASRM, consideration should be given to developing the new liquid strap-on at the ASRM site in northern Mississippi.

Realized back in 1994!

> The Apollo block II couches could handle land landings through the use of internal attenuation. It was most critical during certain off the pad or low altitude aborts, depending on wind speed and direction.

For anyone unaware, Orion includes an attenuation system. (Crew Impact Attenuation System http://blog.al.com/space-news/2009/04/nasas_orion_crew_vehicle_begin.html )

> The Russians use soft landing rockets. Most crewmen have said that landing in a capsule is nothing like a soft landing.

Rockets were once the preferred Constellation land landing architecture. But they went into "Technical Debt" to reduce development cost and risk.

(Oops, perhaps it was gauche to bring up the Technical Debt concept in a sidemount thread.)

Constellation already started hacking up pad 39-B and we have a pile of scrap metal on one of the MLPs.

So start un-hacking 'em and rebuild that Shuttle, er, I mean Shuttle-C launch pad. Remember the old wisecrack about make-work gooberment jobs: Pay people to dig holes, and then pay them to fill in the holes.

If you can barely pull together the risk pool for a 15-20 metric tonne payload, how are you going to find the capital to insure 100-150 metric tonnes of expensive high tech machinery?

True, private launch insurance for a 100-150 tonne payload is not practical. But you can't sue da US gooberment for space launch mishaps, with the restricted exception of False Claims Act lawsuits. It's part of what lawyers call "sovereign immunity."

Only da gooberment could own and operate a big big launch missile. That's part of the HLV advocates' agenda.

Blunt-ended RVs with expendable service modules have been used by all HSF agencies for decades without the disposal of the SM being an issue. I thus suspect that it is a seriously exaggerated risk. As Orion was to be used in much the same way, I assume that the guys at JSC and LockMart designing the vehicle didn't consider the issue a red flag either.

Except that Lockheed's original and preferred design for the program that became Oldsmobile Orion (TM) was its lifting body Crew Exploration Vehicle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Vehicle

And you're praising the Russian and Chicom regimes insensitivity about orbital or re-entering debris safety issues as a model to emulate? ("all HSF agencies")

Great, just great.

Other Designations: Crew Exploration Vehicle. Class: Manned. Type: Spacecraft. Destination: Moon. Nation: USA. Agency: NASA.

The Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) was NASA's planned manned spacecraft intended to carry human crews from Earth into space and back again from 2012 on.

When Mike Griffin was appointed NASA Administrator, he threw out the previous elaborate plans for evolutionary development of a Crew Exploration Vehicle through a long, expensive, 'spiral' development process. Instead he obtained White House backing to plunge ahead using existing technology and NASA's best judgment. The imaginative proposals from industry were largely ignored, except where they supported NASA's own conclusions. Lockheed and Northrop were notified that they had 'won' the CEV design competition in June 2005, except that they would be only be allowed to make final bids based on the design dictated by NASA. NASA's own configuration was called 'Apollo on steroids'. Block 1 versions of the CEV would be used initially to provide access to the International Space Station after the retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2011. Thereafter it would provide the earth return vehicle for missions to the moon (Block 2, by 2020) or Mars (Block 3, by 2030+?).

NASA proposed a spacecraft with 23% less total mass than the Apollo CSM, 25 metric tons, but with a greater basic diameter of 5.5 m, rather than Apollo's 3.9 m. The re-entry vehicle was a 41% scaled up version of the Apollo command module. This would have over three times the internal volume and double the surface area of the Apollo capsule, but NASA claimed its mass could be limited to only 64% more than the Apollo design. Despite the increase in volume and mass, it would provide accommodation for only four to six crew (versus three to five in Apollo), plus up to 400 kg of payload that could be returned from orbit. An unmanned version of the capsule, with all crew provisions removed, could deliver or return up to 3500 kg of cargo to the International Space Station.

...

The CEV would be launched into earth orbit by the Crew Launch Vehicle, a shuttle-derived two-stage rocket consisting of a single Shuttle RSRM solid booster as the first stage and a new second stage, 5.5 m in diameter, using Lox/LH2 propellants and powered by a single SSME.

The CEV, while breaking no radical new technological ground, did seem ambitious and could be a weight-control challenge. NASA seems to be looking to duplicate the performance of the Apollo CSM at an overall mass 20% less, while providing more space for the crew and generous provisions for cargo taken to orbit and back in the return capsule. Apparently the allowance for weight growth was only 2.4%, while NASA's own experience on manned spacecraft had been over 20%. A comparison with comparable manned spacecraft shows the differences and challenges:

( drawings )
From left to right, to same scale: CEV, Apollo CSM, Big Gemini, TKS, Soyuz, Shenzhou

...

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/cev.htm

The Apollo CSM could carry 6, and there were attachments for that many seats, although in the case of the Skylab or ASTP rescue missions it was intended to launch only 2 and return with 5.

Originally NASA was going to use unobtainium on the heatshield, which would have reduced the mass. It turned out that unobtainium was unobtainable and therefore they had to drop the size, earth landing capability and increase the capacity of the booster, and eventually reduce the crew size too. Shortly before cancellation Constellation announced they were going with the same material and configuration, produced by the same company, as the Apollo heatshield.

What was also very interesting was that most of the astronauts were speaking up for a flyable return vehicle and against a capsule approach. Some claim that a lifting body or winged vehicle for lunar or Mars returns was not possible.

Looks like they did not make 2012. Actually Bush's original stated goal was first flights in 2008.