@beachrider
I'll begin with an apology for a misunderstanding. I'd believed the MPCV was required to give SLS a mission to carry out.
I realize this is absurd. SLS's capacity of a mimimum of 70 tonnes (but with design margin up to 130 tonnes according to the act) is stupidly in excess of MPCV's mass. Depending on altitude both Delta IV Heavy and Falcon 9 Heavy *could* carry it
That leaves SLS with *no* payload it's *needed* to carry, *except* the paycheques of NASA and various major con-tractors for a few years more.
"I can see where you get your material."
No ironically I found the videos on the day I posted the comment, although the two on Apollo do sum up my impression of the Senators who have *ordered* SLS to be built.
My opinions come from several decades study of human spaceflight programmes both as technology and as political systems and their *repeated* inability to deliver significant improvement. My background is engineering, not IT supplemented by background reading of various text books on the subject, along with following the relevant news groups since the early 90s with further assistance from the NASA technical reports server. Learning about the insanity of the US federal budget "system" was a more recent exercise and an almighty PITA, as I'm not a US taxpayer. I've just been amused by what they have let their legislators do to them.
"OK, finally someone has blogged something on YouTube about NASA that is in line with you comments. I"
That's not encouraging. The YouTube poster is an active blogger, which you would know if you followed this debate through blogs or news groups
I asked what is your point of view. I'll look at your answers.
"Black Letter means that they are explicitly stated, not indirectly interpreted."
This appears to be more of a legal term than one drawn from engineering standard.
"MCPV is a limited production device that is more useful as a standard than as an overall technology. I doubt that anyone will make more than 4-5 of them before their technology is significantly changed. "
The question was did you think it was a good idea to do it and was it something NASA requested or is it being foisted upon them.
"I am in favor of privatization of lifting devices, so long as they don't limit the scope of what-is-lifted too much."
That appears to be an actual opinion.
" Falcon Heavy doesn't lift as much as SLS, so I am concerned about using MCPV on Falcon Heavy."
A quick check indicates F9H can lift the *entire* Apollo stack minus the SIVb departure stage.
MCPV based on Orion seems to be about 28 tonnes. It would have to bloat a *lot* before F9H could not handle it. It's original mission duration was substantially longer so if anything MCPV should weigh *less* than Orion, again eliminating *any* SLS need.
" I don't want to see a Nikon/Canon situation where incompatibilities sap the funding for deep-space work."
Nor would anyone in their right mind. The sapping of funds to fund SLS and MCPV is *highly* likely. It's happened with every other NASA human spaceflight programme, ISS (or SS Freedom, or Alpha) and launcher replacement attempts (X33 and its predecessors).
"I am not convinced that SpaceX is committed to an MCPV lifter by 2020."
Barring *major* bloat in MCPV mass F9H is MCPV capable in 2012 and Delta IV Heavy *might* be capable right now (depending on orbital parameters and MCPV fuel loads). SLS looks more like a jobs programme.
"They need to generate profits from LEO for a few years to build up the capital & experience to go through a product development cycle for this."
They've gone through *two* PDC's for launchers and *four* for their engines since their founding. They appear to have a fairly healthy worldwide order book for launches *other* than NASA.
" I don't believe that they will do it any faster than NASA's suppliers, either."
Adam Harris of Spacex stated Dragon took 4 1/2 years and about $300m to develop
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JtjztdtCnw
Although AFAIK this does not include the NASA $75m to deliver an escape system to make it human rateable.
Constellation has been running since 2004 and consumed IIRC $11.4Bn.
Perhaps you could confirm if that figure is accurate and how much of it went toward Orion.
"They will probably do it more cost effectively, though."
Seems likely does it not?
"My conjecture is that MCPV is about 'getting to some deep space transport that isn't safe to fire in LEO'."
I'll presume you mean a nuclear thermal engine. There is AFAIK *no* provision for such long term development in the current NASA act and I'd hazard a guess that it's timeline would be even *longer* than the MPCV development schedule it there were. So unless there's a large nuclear thermal engine in the black budget that will be de-classified I think that's wishful thinking.
" Perhaps some Lagrange point or some NEO asteroid. I am surprised that there isn't more discussion about the usefulness of the MCPV as a 21-day-limited deep space transport."
Perhaps because people doubt it will *ever* be built or launched.
Here is a reminder of some of the elements discovered by the Augustin Commission
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkOZWhSImGg
In particular from roughly 07:30 onward Jeff Greason explains why an SLS launcher at 130 tonnes is useful but far from *mandatory* for *any* mission below a mission to Mars.
His other point is there are *lots* of tasks NASA *could* investigate which *would* enable people in space and improve US capability. How NASA does business could make as *big* a difference in this area as *any* technical development it makes.
My regret is I am unable to find a video where he draws an analogy between the Senators involved in funding process and baby crying for its rattle.