Draft NASA HLV BAA Released

NASA is examining the trade space of potential heavy lift launch and space transfer vehicle concepts. The focus is on affordability, operability, reliability, and commonality with multiple end users (Department of Defense (DoD), commercial, science, international partners, etc.) at the system and subsystem levels.
...
A variety of in-space architectural elements, such as space transfer stages, space transfer vehicles, propellant depots may be included. The focus will be on developing system concepts that can be used by multiple entities (NASA, DoD, Commercial, International) with a strong emphasis on affordability.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/summary.do?method=init&solId={912C7227-85A9-FBF5-7E43-574FF9C51734}&path=init

Shuttle-derived anything is not in the running. Nobody but NASA dreams of needing such heavy lift as the shuttle hardware provides. And Augustine found it unaffordable without synergy from a shuttle extension which we know isn't happening.

RC, how do "we know" shuttle extension isn't happening?
And, actually, although I personally think SD HLV lift could be made to "be adequate" for BEO missions, there are many who say even it does not provide for the real exploration needs.
Better (and cheaper) to have the "synergy" than to just HOPE commercial capability actually becomes a reality and can generate a POSITIVE ROI in the next 10 years!In fact, I would argue that "shuttle-derived synergy" (mission and ground ops skills, experience and facilities use) would greatly help make such a dream become a reality!

Maybe I read the RFI wrong, but I did NOT see anything about in space nuclear propulsion. There was mention of solar electric propulsion, which will not get us to Mars. Someone tell me I am wrong here. If we do not use this chance for in space nuclear power/propulsion, then we are not going to Mars in the next hundred years. Solar power does not provide the amount of energy we need at that distance from the Sun without huge arrays.

> Maybe I read the RFI wrong, but I did NOT see anything about in space nuclear propulsion. There was mention of solar electric propulsion, which will not get us to Mars. Someone tell me I am wrong here. If we do not use this chance for in space nuclear power/propulsion, then we are not going to Mars in the next hundred years. Solar power does not provide the amount of energy we need at that distance from the Sun without huge arrays.

It's because you need to be looking at a different RFI. In-space fission engines are part of the ETDD RFI announced last week: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=34056

Actually, in space fission engines are not part of the ETDD RFI either. A ground based demo of a 40Kw power conversion system, using a nuclear power source simulator, is what the ETDD is asking for.

> RC, how do "we know" shuttle extension isn't happening?

We're beyond answering old self-evident questions like this.

FWIW, two members of the DIRECT team claim to have a copy of this report but directly attributed to Doug Cooke. Take from that what you will.

Thanks for the reference. I went back and re-read it. Did anyone else see what was wrong with it? Item "2. High-Power Electric Propulsion System..." is something that NASA gave away because they didn't want to work on it. So Franklin Chang-Diaz went and created Ad Astra and is continuing to develop this capability. They already achieved >100kw!!! In fact it was double that. The only thing that hasn't been done is the long term testing and of course in space testing.

Where could we be and what could have been accomplished by now if we had spent the 9 soon to be 10.5 billion from Ares 1 on VASIMR technology.

Sorry Spock, that wasn't a very logical choice.

Also, I thought Glenn Research already had the demo fission reactor with a substitute heat element instead of the actual radioactive core? What gives?

yaaa,
when I heard restarting the ET production would take two years I gave up on the side mount fanboy universe and its shuttle extension.

Commercial crew and the HLV will be EELV and a EELV super heavy just under 100 MT if fuel depot pans out.
But what if there is a continuing resolution in the congress? the strategy should be to divert as much of the constellation funds as possible to Orion and the J2X and second stage.The second stage would be built at and integrated with the EELV's at Decatur.This was suggested by the aerospace corporation but warned that it would not be cheaper then the 5 segment SRB.Also I have my doubts if this vehicle would be an option for DOD, commercial and science(?)