NASA: Do Not Collect $200, Do Not Pass GO

[Aaron]

So if the Bush era proposal (Ares I think?) had gone ahead, how long would we have to wait until it was in service as opposed to these kitbash designs?

[MKSheppard]

Things just got a hell lot more complicated:

Link

*snip much*

In recent weeks, key aerospace companies have demanded that NASA open the new rocket project to competition or face the prospect of lawsuits.

One, aerospace giant Aerojet, told NASA in a letter Dec. 1, that "we do intend to compete" for the solid-rocket boosters and engines that Congress wants put on the new rocket.

Aerojet makes solid rockets as well as liquid-rocket engines. The company has long been unhappy that NASA awarded a no-bid contract for the first stage of the Ares I rocket to rival solid-rocket manufacturer ATK, in part on the erroneous grounds that it was the country's only producer of large solid-fuel rockets.

With a new project in the offing, Aerojet wants the chance to win the business back.

"Aerojet believes that the only affordable and sustainable path … is achieved through competition," the letter said.

But a new competition — combined with the inevitable protests and legal challenges that would follow it — runs the risk of further slowing any effort to quickly convert pieces of the shuttle and Constellation into a new spacecraft system by Dec. 31, 2016, as the new law demands.

Senate staffers who helped craft the new law say that NASA has no choice but to extend the contracts. However, several contracting lawyers disagree, saying that a new rocket is a significant-enough change in the scope of the project as to require NASA to rebid the contracts or face potentially lengthy legal action.

Aerojet officials would not comment on the letter, and NASA would only say that it is still considering its options.

Maybe this extra delay means a bigger stake can be driven into the Shuttle Infrastructure, so that NASA can return to the One True Rocket, as created by Saint Werhner...

[Enigma]

I'm a complete noob in this but when the shuttles were in the planning stages, didn't NASA originally opt for an all-in-one shuttle. As in, it had everything needed to launch into orbit without the need of boosters? I remember reading or hearing it somewhere years ago and that NASA dropped that idea as being too expensive.

Was that true?

Also, why can't they do that now? Design and build a space shuttle without the need of boosters?

[phongn]

I'm a complete noob in this but when the shuttles were in the planning stages, didn't NASA originally opt for an all-in-one shuttle. As in, it had everything needed to launch into orbit without the need of boosters? I remember reading or hearing it somewhere years ago and that NASA dropped that idea as being too expensive.

The Shuttle is a product of departmental infighting (NRO/USAF vs NASA), slashed development budgets (thank you Nixon) and somewhat over-optimistic engineering (tiles, SSME). As originally intended it would be a relatively small vehicle launched by a fully-reusable booster rocket. There were also some stage-and-a-half designs with only expendable fuel tanks envisioned.

Was that true?

There weren't any serious single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) designs in the mix; it's a pretty hard thing to do.

Also, why can't they do that now? Design and build a space shuttle without the need of boosters?

The was the goal of the X-33 program. SSTO is hard to do, expensive and payload-constrained (with present technology).

[Uraniun235]

What if the Air Force had decided back in the 70s that they didn't want to be part of the Shuttle project? Would NASA have gotten a different Shuttle or were Air Force funds needed to get Shuttle off the ground?

[phongn]

What if the Air Force had decided back in the 70s that they didn't want to be part of the Shuttle project? Would NASA have gotten a different Shuttle or were Air Force funds needed to get Shuttle off the ground?

STS probably would've died without USAF funding.