HLV BAA Released

What does all this mean? Are we starting from scratch again?

Yep, back to square one.

Rumor goes they're pushing for a hydrocarbon/LOX 1st stage like Falcon and Atlas V (instead of cryogenic propellants H2/LOX like Delta IV or Ares V), which also why they also want to develop a new engine since Atlas V relies on the Russian RD-180.

Atlas is in the hot seat since there's also some talk in the Air Force to consolidate operations around Delta IV (part of the reason being Atlas relies on the Russian RD-180 engine, and also the lack of customers for the Atlas 3-core 'heavy' version).

So, to me it's clear this boils down to Falcon vs. Atlas in their 3-core 'heavy' version. I very much doubt the HLV they have in mind goes much beyond a 30 ton 'Shuttle-like' payload to LEO ... enough to launch replacement modules to ISS after 2020.

That's the plan, but whether it ever gets implemented is a different question.

It seems to me that this is standard procurement legalese. WRT the content of the BAA/upcoming HLPT procurement actions, NASA is pursuing a course that is consistent with the FY11 President's budget request. Nothing new there.
Your comment re: starting from scratch...most interested parties in the NASA aerospace community know that there have been several starts and stops re: propulsion technology R&D over the past decade. IMHO, the inability of Congress and the WH to agree to continuously and completely fund these activities has lead to their inevitable demise. This is not a result of poor performance at MSFC, the contractors etc., it is more of a divergence of a consistent policy approach regarding exactly what we need, in what time frame it is needed, and to perform what service.
Rome is burning...

If they have the sense to pour pee from a boot NASA will require:
- No solids
- Parallel staging
- No solids
- Flyback booster
- No solids

NASA knows SpaceX and PWR can both build RD-180 competitors to use on Falcon 9 and Atlas V triple body rockets, both of which meet the Augustine report definition of heavy lift.

NASA just needs to start the competition. I guess this is the precursor to that.

Tesla just had their IPO so now Elon has some cash on hand. I wonder if that happened, in part, because he felt he might need some more money to start a new project. Something like an HLV engine.

This is a waste of time.

I remember seeing the Venture Star in the science section of the Boston Globe.

Then there was the OSP, then Ares I and V.

You can even throw in those DIRECT proposals.

You know what the problem is? It isn't sold propellants. It isn't Russian engines. it isn't even money. It is people. It's that for some reason, people have forgotten to come to a consensus. They don't care about dissenting, and when a plan of action is agreed upon, supporting and working to improve it. Now, if your "side" loses, then engaged in scorched earth tactics.

So sure. Let's start from square one with a new "heavy lift" idea even though Ares V has been planned for for six or seven years. I'm sure it'll be subject to another DIRECT like fiasco. I'm sure the next president will modify or cancel it out right.

As much as I hate to say it, James Cameron is right. The future of space exploration is unmanned probes, Avatar and movie theaters. Why? Because for $50 million, a couple hundred artists can dream up any sort of "alien" world that actually excites the public, while building heavy rockets to send people to planets that looks like barren deserts is hard.

And hard is something American's just don't do anymore.

No, it's people on some Quixotic Quest to build a design to satisfy their own ego instead of following the KISS Principle (Keep it Simple Stupid).

Go back and look at the original 2004-2005 industry proposals, there were some really ingenious concepts didn't rely on an HLV but instead used available technology. A number of proposals would have put us near/on the lunar surface by 2012-2015.

And don't tell me that it was "garage mechanics" when the solutions were coming from Boeing, LM, ULA, Orbital and other established players.

Anyway, I seem to remember that Wilbur & Orville were "garage mechanics" . . .

Maybe they can come with a compelling reason for why we need heavy lift.

Maybe?

(but I doubt it - heavy lift seems to be one of those unquestionable assumptions in the space community, like 'Mars is THE GOAL' or 'robots are better than people', or that a rocket named Ares is all about the Moon)

Seriously, can someone explain to me why heavy lift is actually a requirement now or in the near future, and not just a desirement? And I consider 'Ooh, we could have even bigger telescopes!' as a desirement.

Because from my perspective we are going to be spending boatloads of money on this particular pyramid; money whose opportunity cost is pretty darn significant. I don't see any compelling reason to do so, and so from a taxpayer's perspective that's pretty annoying.

The opportunity cost I see for this money is technology development on things like: automated rendezvous and docking of space vehicles (with human supervision of course); lots and lots of propellant flights on existing rockets; a trans-LEO, at least cislunar capable, Crewed Vehicle; test flights of that CrV to GEO, EML-1 and LLO; standardized propulsion modules delivering say ~4, 6, and 8 km/s dV; universal interfaces to international standards; metric lessons for NASA engineers; space-based instruments (preferably at EML-1) that scan and characterize NEOs, especially those Sunward of us, on our blind side, to find targets of opportunity; a somewhat standardized landing module with legs that could be attached to space vehicles for descent into gravity wells; an international effort of space scientists to collect, parse, collate, audit, categorize and otherwise massage all of the astronomical data collected to date and set up some international standards for reporting that data, so that we can stop rediscovering the same stuff over and over again, as has been the case in the past, and then fund better efforts to mine that data; a Lunar communications network that preserves the radio 'silence' of the far side (I'm thinking lasers and fiber optics and huge halo orbits at EML-2); and lots more.

That's what I'd do instead of build an HLV.

The question I have is can we develop a BEO exploration strategy using existing launchers? I know everyone wants to have big giant rockets but if we are only going to launch them twice a year they will never be worth the development cost. Let's design around the rockets we have. There are plenty of things we have to develop for exploration without having to build the rockets. Also if NASA owns an HLV then that will be a part of the budget every year it's around. If we use existing rockets than the maintenance is shared with the other customers. For the cost of designing an HLV $10B or so you could get about 40 Delta IV Heavy Launches or over 2 million lbs in LEO in 50,000 lb chunks which is about twice the ISS. I'd rather spend the money on building spaceships than rockets.

> So sure. Let's start from square one with a new "heavy lift" idea even though Ares V has been planned for for six or seven years.

What this is doing is putting us back onto the proper and cost-effective track we were on with the pre-ESAS VSE proposals, before Mike Griffin threw those all out and forced the Ares I/V abomination down NASA's throat.

> So sure. Let's start from square one with a new "heavy lift" idea even though Ares V has been planned for for six or seven years.

You lost track there! Basically no money has been spent on Ares V. "Switching" to a new rocket is only switching in our imaginations. Because Ares V is imagination.

We won't be building heavy lift rockets to send people to barren desert planets. We'll be building hundreds of reusable launchers to carry parts for Solar power satellites into synchronous orbit. Everything else will follow from that.

> The question I have is can we develop a BEO exploration strategy using existing launchers?

It's worthwhile to read through the BAA, because, if I understand correctly, a BEO exploration strategy which utilizes either existing 25mt launchers or "light" HLV in the 40mt range would be a perfectly good proposal under this BAA. It doesn't specify any minimum payload requirements for launchers, or even specify raw launcher performance as a desirable attribute. Rather, the focus is on "affordability, operability, reliability, and commonality with multiple end users," which seems fairly unprecedented for NASA, especially compared to something like ESAS/CxP.

My suspicion is that something like ULA's ACES/depot-based commercial exploration architecture will be favored, particularly after reading this part of the BAA:

"This effort will include architecture assessments of a variety of heavy lift launch vehicle and in-space vehicle architectures employing various propulsion combinations and how they can be employed to meet multiple mission objectives. 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 end users with a strong emphasis on affordability, based on the offeror’s business assumption."

"Hundreds of reusable launchers"...Are you kidding me? They can't get enough stable funding to build ONE.

Oops, sorry, I drifted. If NASA gets its act together it will easily get funding for a few well-thought-out reusable technology demonstrators, and then someone else will be building hundreds of them. NASA first needs to get beyond the idea that it will ever again employ tens of thousands of voters to design, build, operate or manage space transportation. That change of mindset is the real "heavy lift" required now.

Why should NASA have to pay to develop a competitor for RD-180? It's cheaper just to let private competition run its course and replace Atlas-V with Falcon-9.

The RS-68 engine works just fine on Delta IV and is all an HLV would require.

Let NASA focus on exploration instead of subsidizing business that are lose money.

ULA's bread and butter is the DoD and NASA is a pleasant side deal. Falcon 9 may well replace Atlas and Delta as far as NASA is concerned; however, DoD will not be switching anytime soon.

However, you are a very keen "Lowly Contractor" to realize that companies like SpaceX will surpass ULA in the free market as their rockets gain maturity. Also, I would suggest that there is room for another "SpaceX" company out there. I am not sure if this is Orbital. It could be.

Remember, DoD pays ULA a sum every year no matter how many Atlas or Delta rockets launch. Frankly, the DoD could save a ton of money by demanding change (change we can believe in!) by asking ULA to become more streamlined to be more competitive with Falcon 9 as Falcon 9 matures.

This, of course, is all my humble opinion.

VR
RE327

I really wish they'd let NASA people respond (the solicitation says that NASA centers can't respond). The system makes is so durned hard to get new ideas into the mix.

Falcon 9 can not replace the Atlas V. It doesn't have the performance.