Futurs lanceurs U.S

So now we know why Atlas was shunned by Augustine
By Rob Coppinger on December 3, 2009 5:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
|ShareThis
It did seem odd that despite there being two operational Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles, namely Atlas and Delta, that only the Delta IV was being considered during the Norman Augustine led review of US human spaceflight plans

And then yesterday at the House of Representatives' subcommittee on space and aeronautics we hear Jospeh Fragola, Valador Inc vice president and Augustine committee engineering analysis support team member, state that the United Launch Alliance Atlas 431 (watch an Atlas V 431 launch here) had been studied by the Orbital Space Plane programme and been rejected. Three solid rockets strapped to a liquid first stage was deemed a bad idea apparently

Have they not seen the Ares V Lite design? A liquid core with two solid rocket boosters
This blog agrees with others that championing the Ares I first-stage, that is using an untested five-segment evolution of the Space Shuttle four-segment solid rocket booster (SRB), while questioning the reliability of an Atlas SRB that has never failed in the full knowledge that the Augustine report recommended a crewed Ares V Lite is a bit odd

And this blog had thought that the issue with Atlas was its Russian first-stage engines. And maybe it really is

The turn of events at the hearing has given rise to the view that the Congressional panel had already decided what they wanted to think and that Ares I was the better option

Hyperbola was struck by the apparent lack of knowledge of a number of the subcommittee members, when they should have been the experts as far as Congress was concerned. While Californian Congressman Dana Rohrabacher was the only subcommittee member to push on the EELV alternative his questions were easy for the anti-EELV witnesses to bat away

Meanwhile NASA's Wayne Hale takes a swing at the commercial crowd in his latest blog posting

Hyperbola had concluded recently that Ares I's days really were numbered but having watched the subcommittee, if this group has any real sway then Ares I really might not be dead after all

What could Norman Augustine's mystery booster be?
By Rob Coppinger on December 8, 2009 5:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
|ShareThis
Much has been made of the support Norman Augustine's committee has given to commercial spaceflight but what hasn't been talked about is the mystery booster

In the full Review of US human spaceflight plans report it separates the booster from the capsule for the commercial crew competiton it is proposing and refers to a high reliability booster with a track record that NASA would provide but oddly it is not named. On page 70 the report says

In addition, the Committee believes that if a commercial crew program is pursued, NASA should make available to bidders a suitable version of an existing booster with a demonstrated track record of successful flight, adding to the program cost.

Some might have assumed that this was an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, either United Launch Alliance's Atlas V or its Delta IV but if so why not just say so?

According to the report it will have a track record which suggests that it should be flying already, so why not name it?

Could it then be the Delta II, a rocket that we always hear is about to have its last launch? But that only has a measly 5,430kg to low Earth orbit capability so its unlikely to be it, not based on that payload capacity data anyway it doesn't look quite enough. Not if you want a six crew International Space Station emergency return capable vehicle. It's a shame because the Delta has, according to this document, a very good reliability

So why not those EELVs?

The EELVs have their fair share of challenges, from the revelation that the Atlas V was apparently deemed unsafe by the Orbital Space Plane programme and its Russian engine situation, to the Delta IV needing a new upper stage and a new launch pad - the latter being mentioned by United Launch Alliance CEO Michael Gass at the 17 June Augustine hearing

Could it be a foreign launcher? NASA administrator Charles Bolden told this journalist at the 60th International Astronautical Congress in Korea in October that it would be up to US president Barack Obama to decide to what degree international partners were "on the critical path" for crew transport. Could a Samara Space Center Soyuz-FG launch a "commercial" capsule from French Guiana? Alas that six crew capability necessary capsule won't like that, assuming that is actually needed

So what could this mystery booster be? Could it be the Ares I? Probably not if you want a 2016 first launch that fits within the Obama 2010 NASA budget request

Could it be a booster of the future? When the report says track record it doesn't say a record yet to be substantiated but it does'nt not say that either

Could there be a booster that would have flown dozens of times by 2016? Yes, its Space Exploration Technologies' Falcon 9 and it has a 10,450kg to LEO (28.5 degree inclination) capability - SpaceX says that would only be slightly lower for the ISS' 52 degrees orbital inclination location. And then there is the heavy version with its three liquid cores and its 26,000kg to LEO potential

But why not Orbital Sciences' Taurus II I hear you ask? Because this blog post is going to assume that the Space News article not naming it as a company selected for NASA's Commercial Crew Development activity is correct - so no crew transport for Orbital

Hyperbola has even heard gossip that the Augustine committee had Falcon 9 in mind. Certainly SpaceX can jump for joy if true because the committee's report goes on to say on page 70

As will be discussed in Section 5.4.2., the Committee reviewed convincing evidence
of the value of independent oversight in the mission assurance of launchers, and would envision a strong NASA oversight role in assuring commercial vehicle safety. The challenge of developing a safe and reliable commercial capability for crew transport will require devoting government funds to "buy down" a significant amount of the existing uncertainty. Whatever the particulars of this risk removal process, it will take an appreciable period of time and require the application of thorough, independent mission-assurance practices. A critical aspect of this exercise will be confirming the root cause and adequacy of correction of any failures or anomalies encountered in the development test program. [emphasis added]

The report then goes on to say, again on page 70, that

NASA should make available...a suitable version of an existing booster...adding to the program cost. The best preliminary estimate of the Committee was about a $3 billion program for the fraction of the design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT&E) effort that would be borne by NASA. After multiplying by the historical growth factors and
other multipliers associated with 65 percent confidence estimating (as will be discussed in Section 6.3), the cost carried in the Committee's final estimate of the cost of the program to NASA is about $5 billion.[emphasis added]

This suggests that NASA's costs for crew transport will almost entirely be taken up with the booster suggesting the commercial partner will have to find all the funds for the capsule or at least NASA's share of that spend will be very limited. But if you're making the booster your laughing all the way to the bank it would seem - are we still sure Ares I won't get selected?

But it gets worse. On page 71 the report says

It was estimated by the Committee that under the "less constrained budget" to be discussed in Chapter 6, the commercial crew launch service could be in place by 2016. Estimates from providers ranged from three years to five years from the present. Assuming a year for program re-alignment, this would produce a start in early FY 2011. Using the upper end of the estimated range, a capability in 2016 could be estimated with reasonable confidence.[emphasis added]

The less constrained budget adds $3 billion over the next four fiscal years. What is the likelihood of that happening?

The situation that exists is that the Augustine committee sees a commercial option operating by 2016 only if there is extra NASA cash. Neither does it envisage a truly commercial procurement process, NASA is now on the critical path with the booster. And not just for mission assurance that is clear. Now the booster is independent of much of the commercial partners whose sole aim is to produce an American Soyuz with a minimum of three seats and a maximum of six, one would imagine

The question that remains with Hyperbola is, is that booster Ares I or Falcon 9 because that choice is all important

Why does Augustine's EELV option seem suspicially Ares-like?

It's a question to ask when you consider that Norman Augustine's report says on page 92:

The [Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle]-heritage Super Heavy Option 5B has an edge in technology, because it includes a new US developed large hydrocarbon engine,

Why is this important, because the report says on page 69 that "Using the EELV to launch the Orion [or any capsule this blog imagines] would only make sense if it were coupled with the development of an EELV-heritage super-heavy vehicle for cargo launch"?

Does that mean that the much touted EELV crew launchers such as Atlas V would need such a new hydrocarbon engine? Hydrocarbons, namely engines that burn kerosene with liquid oxygen, much beloved of the Russians, are first stage engines. The link that Augustine is making between an EELV crew vehicle launcher and a cargo booster is essentially the same that existed between Ares I and Ares V

And sure enough on page 67 Augustine says: "The upgraded EELV systems would have a core vehicle that would, by itself, have a launch capability to low-Earth orbit in the range of 30 to 35 [metric tonnes]"

Thirty five metric tonnes, sounds enough for one of these core stages to loft a chunky Orion crew and service module, and all thanks to this wonderful new hydrocarbon engine - but who would make it?

Interestingly on page 37 of the 2008 NASA authorisation act it stated that the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) should produce a report for Congress on the US rocket engine industrial base. It was supposed to be delivered in January of this year but by July Hyperbola was being told by OSTP that "The interagency review is ongoing and progress has been made. But it is not complete and I can't predict how much longer it will take."

It is now December and you would imagine that such a report could be quite important for such a decision on EELV or Ares, or any of the crew transportation options. At the moment there are basically three US companies offering powerful hydrocarbon engines, Space Exploration Technologies' (SpaceX) Merlin engine, Aerojet's Russian NK-33 originated AJ26-xx variants and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne's own P&WR RS-27A (however this Delta II main engine on its own will not have the power needed for Augustine's proposals) and the Russian Energomash RD-180, RD-120

Or is this OSTP rocket engine industrial base report being held back for one reason? The SpaceX Falcon 9 maiden flight perhaps?

New hydrocarbon engines, core stages with 35,000kg to LEO capabilities, does it begin to sound like the EELV option Augustine considered is a very long way from the "we just need an emergency detection system" for Atlas V argument from EELV proponents?

This preference for an "EELV-heritage" vehicle and not a straight EELV booster could explain why for the Delta IV Heavy option for crew launch Augustine's report said: "launch of the Orion on the Delta IV HLV was found to be technically feasible, it...was comparable in cost and schedule to simply continuing with the development of the Ares I [crew launch vehicle]."

Ouch, Ares I is no advert for cost savings the Augustine report gives a figure of $6 billion for its completed development on page 90. And that harsh cost estimate for Delta sounds odd because at the Augustine panel's 17 June meeting the Aerospace Corporation reported that Delta IV HLV is cheaper than Ares I to get to ISS and would take 5.5 to 7-years to be human rated

Has the Augustine report set existing EELVs up to fail?

Why does the report use harsher language for the Delta IV HLV for crew transport than was presented by Aero Corp back in June? And why does it go on to ignore the simpler evolution path of the Delta IV for a super heavy with a new upper stage and extra solids to achieve 50,000kg to LEO, Augustine's own exploration minimum using propellant depots? Are extra solids and a new upper stage so much worse than a new family of "EELV-heritage" vehicles with this 35,000kg capable core stage?

And then Hyperbola is being told that EELVs had been touted as the mystery booster by Augustine panel members during talks with industry, which makes even less sense with the report's statements in mind. And even more so when this blog is hearing rumous that SpaceX's Falcon 9 could be the mystery booster first choice

But for a really bizarre twist the Augustine report says this, "the EELV-heritage super heavy vehicle would use the Russian RD-180 hydrocarbon fueled engine, currently used on the Atlas V...In the cost analysis...provision was made for the development of a large domestic engine to replace the RD-180 for NASA...missions."

For a rocket that is a bit like saying we'll build this house and then later we'll change its foundations. Bizarre

And just to well and truly end any hopes for this "EELV-heritage" vehicle Augustine's report says: "Because of these realignment costs [workforce, facilities closures, mothballing], the EELV-heritage super heavy does not become available significantly sooner than the Ares V"

Phew. Compared in cost to Ares I and compared to Ares V in terms of schedule. Could it get any worse?

Orion Pad-Abort ACM Tested

Dec 17, 2009






Engineers at the Alliant Techsystems' (ATK) facility in Elkton, Md., have completed another ground test of the solid-propellant attitude control motor (ACM) designed to steer the launch abort system for NASA's Orion crew exploration vehicle.

Performed Dec. 15, the sixth test of the system appeared successful, although final results must await further analysis, ATK said.

The system consists of a solid-propellant gas generator with eight valves equally spaced around its three-foot diameter. In the test, control software directed as much as 7,000 pounds of thrust to different combinations of the valves, simulating the force that would stabilize and push the Orion capsule away from danger after the launch abort system pulled it off its Ares I crew launch vehicle during a failure on ascent.

"The completion of the Demonstration Motor 1 hot-fire test is a substantial advancement in the development of the ACM," said Kevin Rivers of NASA's Langley Research Center, which is managing the launch abort system development. "With an elaborate eight-valve control system that relies on advanced ceramic composites for several key components, the ACM is among the most complex solid rocket systems ever built."

A test of the entire launch abort system is planned next spring at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

NASA's plans to return astronauts to the moon are dead. So are the rockets being designed to take them there — that is, if President Barack Obama gets his way.

When the White House releases his budget proposal Monday, there will be no money for the Constellation program that was supposed to return humans to the moon by 2020. The troubled and expensive Ares I rocket that was to replace the space shuttle to ferry humans to space will be gone, along with money for its bigger brother, the Ares V cargo rocket that was to launch the fuel and supplies needed to take humans back to the moon.

There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no Constellation program at all.

In their place, according to White House insiders, agency officials, industry executives and congressional sources familiar with Obama's long-awaited plans for the space agency, NASA will look at developing a new "heavy-lift" rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit. But that day will be years — possibly even a decade or more — away.

In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change — and on a new technology research and development program that will one day make human exploration of asteroids and the inner solar system possible.

There will also be funding for private companies to develop capsules and rockets that can be used as space taxis to take astronauts on fixed-price contracts to and from the International Space Station — a major change in the way the agency has done business for the past 50 years.

The White House budget request, which is certain to meet fierce resistance in Congress, scraps the Bush administration's Vision for Space Exploration and signals a major reorientation of NASA, especially in the area of human spaceflight.

"We certainly don't need to go back to the moon," said one administration official.

Everyone interviewed for this article spoke on condition of anonymity, either because they are not authorized to talk for the White House or because they fear for their jobs. All are familiar with the broad sweep of Obama's budget proposal, but none would talk about specific numbers because these are being tightly held by the White House until the release of the budget.

But senior administration officials say the spending freeze for some federal agencies is not going to apply to the space agency in this budget proposal. Officials said NASA was expected to see some "modest" increase in its current $18.7 billion annual budget — possibly $200 million to $300 million more but far less than the $1 billion boost agency officials had hoped for.

They also said that the White House plans to extend the life of the International Space Station to at least 2020. One insider said there would be an "attractive sum" of money — to be spent over several years — for private companies to make rockets to carry astronauts there.

But Obama's budget freeze is likely to hamstring NASA in coming years as the spending clampdown will eventually shackle the agency and its ambitions. And this year's funding request to develop both commercial rockets and a new NASA spaceship will be less than what was recommended by a White House panel of experts last year.

That panel, led by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, concluded that to have a "viable" human space-exploration program, NASA needed a $3 billion annual budget hike, and that it would take as much as $5 billion distributed over five years to develop commercial rockets that could carry astronauts safely to and from the space station.

Last year, lawmakers prohibited NASA from canceling any Constellation programs and starting new ones in their place unless the cuts were approved by Congress. The provision sends a "direct message that the Congress believes Constellation is, and should remain, the future of America's human space flight program," wrote U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., last month.

Nevertheless, NASA contractors have been quietly planning on the end of Ares I, which is years behind schedule and millions of dollars over budget. NASA has already spent more than $3 billion on Ares I and more than $5 billion on the rest of Constellation.

In recent days, NASA has been soliciting concepts for a new heavy-lift rocket from major contractors, including Boeing Co., Lockheed Martin Corp. and Pratt & Whitney. Last week, a group of moonlighting NASA engineers and rocket hobbyists proposed variations on old agency designs that use the shuttle's main engines and fuel tank to launch a capsule into space. According to officials and industry executives familiar with the presentations, some of the contractor designs are very similar to the one pressed by the hobbyists.

Officially, companies such as Boeing still support Constellation and its millions of dollars of contracts. Some believe that in a battle with Congress, Ares may survive.

"I would not say Ares is dead yet," said an executive with one major NASA contractor. "It's probably more accurate to say it's on life support. We have to wait to see how the coming battle ends."

Few doubt that a fight is looming. In order to finance new science and technology programs and find money for commercial rockets, Obama will be killing off programs that have created jobs in some powerful constituencies, including the Marshall Space Flight Center in Shelby's Alabama. But the White House is said to be ready for a fight.

The end of the shuttle program this year is already going to slash 7,000 jobs at Kennedy Space Center.

One administration official said the budget will send a message that it's time members of Congress recognize that NASA can't design space programs to create jobs in their districts. "That's the view of the president," the official said.

Space firms relaunch commercial rocket program

* Venture driven by demand for small satellites
* Boosters seen supporting up to two launches per year
By Irene Klotz
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla., March 25 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin and Alliant Techsystems Inc said on Thursday they were teaming up to build and sell a booster rocket known as Athena, hoping to tap into a growing market for small satellites.
The joint venture restructures and re-introduces for commercial sale a booster that flew seven times between 1995 and 2001 with five successful missions, including putting NASA's Lunar Prospector spacecraft into orbit around the moon.
Athena program manager Al Simpson said a declining market for small satellites had prompted Lockheed Martin to mothball production a decade ago.
Now, new demand for small satellite launch services coming from the Department of Defense and NASA make the Athena economically viable, with an estimated launch rate of one- to two missions per year, Simpson said.
The company plans to offer two versions of the rocket. Athena 1 will carry about 1,540 pounds (700 kg) to an orbit 100 nautical miles above Earth and Athena 2 will be able to lift more than 3,770 pounds (1,712 kg)to the same orbit.
The Athena will compete with Space Exploration Technology's Falcon 1 and several rockets sold by Orbital Sciences Corp, among others.
Athena is expected to fly from a launch complex at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida that recently was acquired by Space Florida, a state-backed economic development group. Other launch sites for Athena include Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, Wallops Island in Virgina and Alaska's Kodiak Island.

The basic design of the first engine variant (including the same turbopump) was based on the abandoned FASTRAC NASA project which developed the similar Fastrac rocket engine at the end of 1990s.^[7]