NASA

Could D- be a passing grade for shuttle life extension?

One of the key arguments against proposals to extend the life of the space shuttle beyond 2010 is that it only solves part of the problem with access to the ISS. The shuttle can ferry crews to and from the station, but it cannot remain on station for extended periods to serve the “lifeboat” role that the Soyuz currently does. Unless…

A NASA SpaceFlight.com article today reviews the current status of a NASA study into the feasibility to extend the shuttle’s life beyond 2010. The article notes the lifeboat problem, but adds:

[T]he issue of a US-controlled ‘lifeboat’ is also being evaluated on several fronts, especially in relation to opening discussions with COTS (Commercial Orbital Transportation Services) partners on providing such a vehicle.

Known as ‘Capability D-minus’, several companies have noted the ability to make available a lifeboat vehicle from 2012 (names and details currently embargoed due to ongoing discussions).

Orbital Sciences, which has one of the two funded COTS awards, could well be one of those companies. Its Cygnus vehicle is currently designed to only carry cargo to the station (COTS Capabilities A and B), but at a commercial space panel event organized by Women in Aerospace in Washington last night, Robert Richards, vice president and COTS program manager at Orbital, discussed a potential upgrade path for Cygnus. The first step, he said, would be to develop a cargo return capability (Capability C). “After you demonstrated the ability to return safely with experiments and things like that,” he said, “it might be your the next step after that to return people in some kind of emergency return system.” That would then be followed by the full Capability D human transportation role.

However, he noted that upgrade path is only a notional approach, and that the company is focused on cargo delivery. Since Orbital’s COTS demo flight is planned for late 2010, it would be highly ambitious for them to have a Cygnus version capable of serving the “D-” lifeboat role by 2012.

20 comments to Could D- be a passing grade for shuttle life extension?

  • ———–

    the lack of an ISS “rescue capsule” could
    become a problem ONLY in a very unlikely
    scenario, while, the Space Shuttle life
    extension may solve 99% of the

    2010-2016-LATER everyday REAL
    crew/cargo/assembly/rapair/maintenance
    /cargo-return NASA/USA problems!!!

    however, if you want to put some (true)
    “competition” in the ISS crew access services,
    just open the ISS to the China’s Shenzhou docking… :)

    ———-

  • gm

    .
    however, the best/cheaper idea of “space lifeboat” is MY (jan. 16, 2007) “Multipurpose Orbital Rescue Vehicle”:

    http://
    http://www.g
    aetanom
    arano.it/artic
    les/017morv.ht
    ml

  • MrEarl

    gm
    I just don’t understand why NASA hasn’t offered you the big bucks to be their “idea man”.
    LOL :-)

  • red

    What are the prospects of reducing the gap without extending the INA and buying more Soyuz trips, without extending the Shuttle (with a D- added – what a bad name for it, by the way), and without shrinking the Ares/Orion schedule — by rolling out the Soyuz trips NASA already has on the books?

    I assume they have 6-crew capability bought in the ISS complete years. What if they stuck with 3 crew members on the ISS, rolled out over a longer time period? Russia would be free, of course, to boost it back to 6 with more flights.

  • Engineering Lead

    <i?What if they stuck with

    Who’s ‘they’?

    The same ‘they’ who stuck US with the stick?

    The same they who have now caused the printing and throwing of hundreds of billions of dollars A DAY NOW out of New York windows, in a vanity ticker tape parade larger now than that of 9/11?

    Do you still trust these people?

  • Starr

    Just a shot in the dark but how about the SpaceX Dragon capsule? Last I hear SpaceX was much farther along with the Dragon capsule than they were with the Falcon 9. Could you bring one up in the Shuttle payload bay and leave it attached to the station? How long could a Dragon sit on orbit? It’s suppose to hold up to 7 passengers.

  • Al Fansome

    STARR: Last I hear SpaceX was much farther along with the Dragon capsule than they were with the Falcon 9. Could you bring one up in the Shuttle payload bay and leave it attached to the station? How long could a Dragon sit on orbit? It’s suppose to hold up to 7 passengers.

    This is a good point.

    But why did you pick the Shuttle for delivery? (This is inside the box thinking that limits consideration of some other good options).

    Since the Dragon is already being designed to rendezvous and dock with ISS, this opens up the option space. In addition, 1) the Dragon will almost certainly have some limits on its on-orbit lifetime, which means that you want to be able to transport it on other LVs, and 2) what would you propose kicking off the Shuttle manifest?

    There are many other space transportation systems that could deliver the Dragon to orbit. Many of them are quite reliable, and most of them will be available after 2010.

    Elon might hate having to launch the Dragon on an EELV, but if NASA decides it wants to buy that option, I am pretty sure that Elon will go along.

    – Al

  • Starr

    I picked the Shuttle as a quick and dirty solution to getting something up there right away. I agree with you about using EELVs but, every time someone mentions using EELVs, someone else starts arguing about how EELVs aren’t man-rated. Using the Shuttle you can get it up there and leave it as a life boat or use it like the Soyuz, as the return vehicle.

  • SpaceMan

    Engineering Lead (in way over his pay grade)Do you still trust these people?

    You mean these gangsters she is talking about ?

    Hey, lighten up, they are OUR gangsters just fighting against THEIR gangsters.

    Why do you think most aware people are desiring to leave this madhouse we label Earth ?

  • Starr: “Could you bring one up in the Shuttle payload bay and leave it attached to the station?”
    true, and it’s already suggested (with a similar concept vehicle) in my “Multipurpose Orbital Rescue Vehicle” article :)

  • Engineering Lead (trying to lower the bar)

    I don’t read that kind of paper. I read this kind of paper :

    http://www.arxiv.org

    Five pages, single spaced, 11 pt Arial, 1 inch margins all around.

    Gotta deadline, gotta go. Good luck with your … um … paper money.

  • anon

    “I picked the Shuttle as a quick and dirty solution to getting something up there right away. I agree with you about using EELVs but, every time someone mentions using EELVs, someone else starts arguing about how EELVs aren’t man-rated. Using the Shuttle you can get it up there and leave it as a life boat or use it like the Soyuz, as the return vehicle.”

    It doesn’t need to be manrated for an unmanned launch. Anyways, shuttle rating is harder than manrating

  • Anyone has ever thought about european ATV? It has just ended his first successsful mission to the ISS, and ESA (European Space Agency) has already made studies to let the ATV to evolve in a manned return vehicle.
    ATV has already proven his value. IMH a partnership could give all of us only good things. Cheers

  • Chuck2200

    We’ve got 3 years left before the exemption expires. If we really wanted to we could develop a very simple return-only capsule that draws its minimal power directly from the station that could dock and stay there for the duration. No fancy maneuvering capabilities, no special navigation. It should be designed to be used like a parachute; in the event of an emergency, punch out and go. Anywhere on the surface is better than a disintegrating spacecraft that you are abandoning. As far as navigation is concerned, it would automatically dump current orbital position upon separation, and then dump the retro data upon completion of the burn, to ground station. It should be designed to do one thing and one thing only; help the human occupants survive re-entry and land on ground/ocean with a reasonable (not guaranteed) chance of survival. It’s a lifeboat, not a yacht. Comfort is not required; survival is.

    We could do this in 3 years; IF we really wanted to.

  • anon

    Chuck 2200,

    That is inadequate. One of the prime and more likely use of a return only vehicle is to deliver an injured crew member safety. Hence, navigation for a deorbit burn is a requirement.

  • Chuck2200

    anon;
    I am proposing that this “lifeboat” vehicle, this Cew Return Vehicle (CRV) be continuously available on-orbit so that Shuttle visits every ~6 months can do a crew exchange and then depart, leaving a new American crew aboard and a way home in an emergency between Shuttle visits. This return-only craft would have no function except to evacuate the station. We have agreements in place with the Russians that are not subject to the exemption for emergency return of injuried personnel. I propose this return-only capsule as a way to cover the shortfall of Shuttle visits without a new exemption. Shuttle, by itself, can only crew the station while it is docked, because once undocked and gone, any new crew is trapped with no way home. But if one of these CRV’s is continually docked, the new crew can remain aboard. If used, the next Shuttle up can bring a replacement along.

  • One of the prime and more likely use of a return only vehicle is to deliver an injured crew member safety. Hence, navigation for a deorbit burn is a requirement.

    An ambulance requirement is a foolish and incompatible requirement with a lifeboat. It says that if a single crewmember needs medical attention, the entire station must be abandoned.

    We don’t have such a requirement in Antarctica for overwintering; why should we have one at ISS?

  • anon

    Never said the whole station had to be abandoned.

  • Never said the whole station had to be abandoned.

    You didn’t have to say it. It is implicit in the concept.

    Unless you have multiple “lifeboats,” if you use the one that you have for an ambulance, you either abandon the station, or you leave the remaining crew without a lifeboat.

  • […] to mention that as was discussed a few months ago regarding the “COTS D-” concept, a vehicle capable of returning living cargo from the station is only a few steps […]

Leave a Reply to anon Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>