Uncategorized

It’s here…

The full Augustine committee report is now online.

37 comments to It’s here…

  • common sense

    Even though the sidemount is shown with a LAS p. 67 it only appears to be for HLV option and not crew since it does not appear anywhere later for crew option. And, it is worth mentionning their finding below. Another sigh of relief here :)

    “While the Committee did not examine the technical trade
    between the side-mount and inline variants in detail, it
    observes that the side-mount variant is considered an inherently
    less safe arrangement if crew are to be carried,
    and is more limited in its growth potential.”

  • Robert Oler

    I’ll have to read it again, but read it after a “noon” nap (the wife is home!) and my first impression is

    a. that Ares 1 has had a convincing case made as to why it should cease
    b. there is going to be some kind of joint heavy lift built
    c. Orion is going to continue but I bet its format changes
    d. We are not returning to the Moon or going to Mars anytime soon.
    e. Not much new money

    it was a quick read (sorry Rich missed the call we were engaged in something else at the time)…and again might have missed a few details. Slowed down though on the part about Ares 1…it is hard for me to see how the Obama administration would find any reason to continue it…at least there were darn few available in the report. The flight rate discussion was the most interesting.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris Valyn

    Robert,
    Quick question – concerning the Heavy lift, any indication as to whether its Shuttle derived based, or EELV based?

  • The Sidemount is only less safe than an inline launch vehicle if i there is a critical malfunction of the SSMEs– which has never occurred in the history of the space shuttle. However, neither the Sidemount nor the inline (DIRECT) would survive a full explosion of one of the solid rocket boosters.

    But I think is pretty obvious that the Sidemount would be substantially safer than the current shuttle system.

  • Martijn Meijering

    If commercial crew taxis are used safety of the SDLV doesn’t matter.

  • Robert Oler

    Quick question – concerning the Heavy lift, any indication as to whether its Shuttle derived based, or EELV based?..

    “tone” is important in these things. What this report is going to do (and why the conclusions are what they are) is give the decision makers (who are not space toadys) ammunition (talking points if you will) to justify their decisions. For instance the report talks about decisions made in 2005 as what was the word “correct” or something…but said that the situation has changed so we should look at different solutions…which is government speak for it was a bad decision and needs to be dumped.

    It seems “clear to me” on the first read that while they talked about a shuttle derived vehicle and were advocating some study of it…the emphasis seemed to be on development of something spun off of the EELV’s. I will read it again but I think that they were arguing that the shuttle and its systems need to go away (for instance they talked about the legacy of shuttle experience but noted that it would be mostly gone by the time a SDV started flying…hinting at layoffs)

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ October 22nd, 2009 at 4:01 pm

    But I think is pretty obvious that the Sidemount would be substantially safer than the current shuttle system…

    on what do you base that judgment, the current system is a “sidemount”?

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert Oler

    I would add one more thing to my statement at the start of the thread.

    There is a smaller NASA coming.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert Oler

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/science/space/23nasa.html?_r=2

    the good folks at FLTODAY have a good summary as well…but you can see how this is going to be read among the folks near and inside the beltway.

    Robert G. Oler

  • The problem with “Flexible Path” is that it does not play to the strengths of having human scientists on site — i.e., field geology. If you just do flybys, you might as well stick with automated spacecraft. The kinds of science that humans excel at requires at least visits, and probably a base. Worse, beyond supporting the base (note that word again) in LEO, there is no obvious role for commercial space transportation, while there is one for a lunar base.

    In short, “Flexible Path” is a complete waste of money, at least as far as science and commerce are concerned.

    — Donald

  • The Wired Science story on the report and Congressional reactions is up now, too.
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/augustine-final-report/

  • Martijn Meijering

    In short, “Flexible Path” is a complete waste of money, at least as far as science and commerce are concerned.

    Not so, telerobotics are the key. See this well thought out implementation of the Flexible Path based solely on science:

    The next steps in exploring Deep Space

  • Marcel F. Williams wrote @ October 22nd, 2009 at 4:01 pm

    MW: But I think is pretty obvious that the Sidemount would be substantially safer than the current shuttle system…

    “on what do you base that judgment, the current system is a “sidemount”?”

    The Orion vehicle doesn’t have any fragile thermal tiles to protect as the current shuttle system does. So its impossible to damage thermal tiles on a system where such thermal tiles– do not exist.

  • common sense

    “The problem with “Flexible Path” is that it does not play to the strengths of having human scientists on site — i.e., field geology.”

    Not true, not really: Telerobotics may be operated from orbit for example. Okay they don’t get to run on the planet’s surface playing with rocks and soil. I would still go! Would you not? How about exploring Europa? Come on! That’d be fun!

    “The kinds of science that humans excel at requires at least visits, and probably a base.”

    It could be a space station for a while.

    ” there is no obvious role for commercial space transportation, while there is one for a lunar base.”

    Wrong and nobody is saying that commercial should not try to set up a base on the Moon. Only NASA will not.

    “In short, “Flexible Path” is a complete waste of money, at least as far as science and commerce are concerned.”

    Wow.

  • common sense

    “The Orion vehicle doesn’t have any fragile thermal tiles to protect as the current shuttle system does. So its impossible to damage thermal tiles on a system where such thermal tiles– do not exist.”

    Do you know what the sidewall of Orion is made of? Do you know whether there’d be a need for a fairing? Made of?

    Where do you get such off-the-hip comments from?

  • Robert Oler

    Marcel…there are other things which can be damaged by “ice”…plus the sidemount system preserves the shuttle system and its clear that has to go.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Doug Lassiter

    “The problem with “Flexible Path” is that it does not play to the strengths of having human scientists on site — i.e., field geology.”

    “Not true, not really: Telerobotics may be operated from orbit for example.”

    Exactly right. I was hoping that the Augustine panel would be wiser about that in the contemporary era of telerobotics. I did find it interesting that the “strengths of having human scientists on site” seems to have collapsed, in the Augustine report, to picking up rocks and turning them over. That one strength is all the committee could point to. Note that they called it a “strength”, and not a requirement. So that wisdom is coming.

    Re flexible path being a waste of money, not sure what you’re talking about. Flybys? What flybys? Are you talking about outer planets? OK, when we’re ready to colonize Neptune, that might be an issue.

  • Loki

    I haven’t read the whole report yet, I’ll probably do that tonight or tomorrow, but just to comment on the question that’s been raised about the safety of the side mount concept vs shuttle:

    The outside of the Orion is covered with a TPS material, it has to be to survive re-entry. They’re not exactly the same as shutlle tiles, but similar enough that foam falling off the tank could still damage them.

    There probably will be a fairing of some sort that gets jettisoned along with the LAS. In the current design that fairing is in 4 sections made out of carbon fiber composite. As for the damage tolerance of those, it’s hard to say for sure. Suffice it to say though, that a large enough chunk of foam could still punch a whole through it. Afterall, the shuttle’s wing leading edge is made of reinforced carbon composite and a piece of foam could still punch through that. Whether or not said foam chunk would still have enough energy to damage the TPS of the Orion, I don’t know for sure but I kind of doubt it.

    The fact there’s a LAS that can pull the capsule to safety in the event of a challenger scenario makes it much safer than the shuttle in that case. The in-line DIRECT style concept is safer still, due to the fact that your crew vehicle isn’t in as close proximity to the SRBs as in the sidemount concept. And now that I think about it, the same could be said for Ares 1.

  • common sense

    And the abort off an unusual attitude, say pitching over, is far more controlable from an inline vehicle, at the very least.

  • Major Tom

    “The problem with “Flexible Path” is that it does not play to the strengths of having human scientists on site — i.e., field geology. If you just do flybys, you might as well stick with automated spacecraft.”

    You do realize that field geology can be performed on asteroids and Phobos, right?

    And that the Flexible Path options all include lunar landings in the late 2020s, right?

    “Worse, beyond supporting the base (note that word again) in LEO, there is no obvious role for commercial space transportation, while there is one for a lunar base.”

    There’s little difference between delivering crew, cargo, and propellant for missions to Lagrange points, asteroids, and Phobos and delivering delivering crew, cargo, and propellant for missions to the Moon. Commercial providers play the same role, regardless of destination.

    “In short, “Flexible Path” is a complete waste of money, at least as far as science and commerce are concerned.”

    Even with asteroids and Phobos, science is about more than field geology. For example, the advantages of servicing astrophysical observatories and solar instruments at Lagrange points as Shuttle has done for HST in LEO can be huge. This is one of several reasons why the Flexible Path options scored higher on science in the final Augustine Committee report than the Moon First options.

    And the cargo and propellant requirements for non-lunar missions can be much larger than for lunar missions, driving a larger market. This is one of several reasons why the Flexible Path options scored higher on economic expansion in the final Augustine Committee report than the Moon First options.

    FWIW…

  • Robert Oler

    I dont see flexible path as a complete waste of money, in fact I see it as the best thing that could be accomplished.

    It is pretty clear if one thinks about it why corporate NASA (the Jeff Hanleys’ of the world) are so opposed to where the recommendations are going. It is pretty much the end of NASA as we know it…a good thing

    NASA right now is all about “turn key from start to stop” from launch to reentry and have controll of all aspects…and it is time for that to change.

    This commission report, if the tone of it is adopted will do a few things (ironically for all the right wingers who use to claim how the GOP loves private enterprise).

    1. It will start and sustain a commercial lift and recovery operation. Major Tom pointed out an obvious but hidden (grin) fact…lift is lift. At some point (and that day is coming) national operations in low earth orbit and prep for deep space efforts need to be national not NASA…if we are lifting parts to go to Mars, that should be done by commercial launchers, if we are lifting people who are going to go to an asteroid, that should be done by commercial launchers…None of these things will right now pay for themselves, but they should be “birthed”.

    2. It will transform NASA into an exploring agency with a synergy of robotics and people. Right now the robotic/people part of NASA is badly divided. Why for instance is JSC working on robots when the expertise to do that sort of thing lies at JPL? People in the loop remotly but near is the standard fare in warfare, construction, etc.

    3. As an exploring agency it will once again become a technology agency. Why should NASA 50 years on into human spaceflight be developing boosters? No point (and the babble about safety shows it).

    Look the Obama administration still has to embrace this and mold the policy change…and that is going to take some minor commitment of his time and prestige…but all in all what I have read so far is the chance for a major change in how spaceflight has been done…and the change (the vector if you will) looks promising.

    The folks who are concentrating on “flags, dates, footprints and symbols” should really think long and hard about the viability of such a program.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Zach

    We should be going straight to Mars, with modest additional money we could make it happen. Flexible path is a waste of time and money, and a lunar returns justifications are questionable at best. Straight to Mars with perhaps a manned NEO mission is the way to go.

  • Robert Oler

    Zach wrote @ October 22nd, 2009 at 9:13 pm

    We should be going straight to Mars, with modest additional money we could make it happen….

    why ?

    anyway we are not

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bob Mahoney

    While Flexible Path may offer the strongest option for implementing the first components of a go-anywhere transportation infrastructure (i.e., not getting boxed in like ESAS did to a lunar-only (or Mars-only) disposable arrangement little suited to much else), it ALSO affords the administration the easiest, cheapest way out of implementing much of anything at all.

    Consider: Orion can become a two-tiered program (Block I (“gap-filling” ISS ferry) / Block II (Deep Space) wherein the 2nd tier can easily be postponed indefinitely, and all that comes out of it is some upgrading of EELVs (if they have the gumption to kill Ares I outright) to carry the lighter, cheaper gap-filling Orion Block I. All deep-space propulsion systems, fuel depots, hab modules, etc, get shelved into advanced studies and become relegated to paper…again.

    And best of all, they can lay the blame/wisdom of walking away from US space exploration on the smart folks who just produced this great report.

  • Robert Oler

    Bob Mahoney I read your post to Monica (my wife) sitting next to me and her response was “it is the off the hook path”.

    after hooting a bit I sort of mulled it over…well maybe.

    I have thought of the Augustine C as one of Sarah Palin’s death panels. Meaning that it was a great way to kill somethings that the Obama administration didnt like at all (like anything Bush…yeah) and which were unlikely to be accomplished at any cost (Ares)..

    and I think that this is probably correct.

    I do see some action out of it…commercial ops to the station, an end to the lunar farce and probably some technology development for an affordable heavy lift…etc with some work, maybe even some hardware for some actual deep space mission.

    But I agree that all this comes (if at all) after stabilizing commercial lift to the station and revamping NASA.

    That is going to take sometime

    Robert G. Oler

  • @ common sense ‘Do you know what the sidewall of Orion is made of? Do you know whether there’d be a need for a fairing? Made of?

    Where do you get such off-the-hip comments from?”

    If you want to make the argument that the heat shield on an Orion capsule that is shrouded within a cargo bay and capped with a LAS can be as easily damaged by foam and ice as a the fully exposed fragile reentry thermal tiles of the space shuttle then I would love to hear your elaborated ‘common sense’ arguments on that one:-)

  • @ Robert G. Oler

    Marcel…there are other things which can be damaged by “ice”…plus the sidemount system preserves the shuttle system and its clear that has to go.

    The space shuttle hasn’t had a fatal malfunction with the solid rocket boosters since 1986 (more than 23 years of continuous success). And the SSME have never caused a fatal malfunction (29 years of continuous success). The shuttle orbiter suffered one fatal accident out of 128 missions thanks to the extremely fragile thermal tiles which have always been a concern for NASA since the shuttle was first developed. But the Orion vehicle will have no thermal tiles and the reentry heat shield will be shrouded within the cargo bay during launch.

  • Top Dog

    We should be going straight to Mars, with modest additional money we could make it happen.

    Ok, Zach, then what?

    What you have demonstrated for us is your complete disconnect from reality.

  • Thank you all for your responses to my comment. I agree that the issues are more complex than I initially thought. I still think a permanent base is the best option, and the one that is known to work, but I feel quite a bit better about the possibilities of the Flexible Option — and it does provide early experience in deep space flight.

    — Donald

  • common sense

    “If you want to make the argument that the heat shield on an Orion capsule that is shrouded within a cargo bay and capped with a LAS can be as easily damaged by foam and ice as a the fully exposed fragile reentry thermal tiles of the space shuttle then I would love to hear your elaborated ‘common sense’ arguments on that one:-)”

    Now you must understand that the heatshield is not equal to the base heatshield right? The sidewalls of Orion are also made of TPS (see Loki’s post above).

    “Whether or not said foam chunk would still have enough energy to damage the TPS of the Orion, I don’t know for sure but I kind of doubt it.”

    I guess that without working the analysis and some tests we’ll never know. Right? Remember the foam impacting the Shuttle wing not being that big of a deal for many years?…

    “The fact there’s a LAS that can pull the capsule to safety in the event of a challenger scenario makes it much safer than the shuttle in that case. The in-line DIRECT style concept is safer still, due to the fact that your crew vehicle isn’t in as close proximity to the SRBs as in the sidemount concept. And now that I think about it, the same could be said for Ares 1.”

    It’s not just about SRB proximity but aero stability upon ejection. Your stack will not necessarily be in the “right” attitude (unlike what was shown on NASAWatch where the stack flies 0 alpha and the LAV ejects). I’d like top see some work where the stack is flying at opposite alpha than that of LV on abort and see whether shock impingement (pitch moment) is an issue or not. Until then I say bad bad idea. And it looks like the committee agrees with me. So?

  • common sense

    I am talking about the sidemount stack of course.

  • common sense

    @Bob Mahoney:

    Of course they can do what you say. But consider this: Assuming the previous WH was so great about it, NASA had 5 (FIVE) years to get something going that made sense and now?

    I would stop laying the blame on a WH that just started and look at how we can get back on track. Sen Shelby and the others’ attitudes are really not helping.

  • Loki

    BTW, I was thinking that there’s another possible advantage to the flexible path option that I don’t think anyone’s pointed out yet (that I know of).

    Even with another $3 billion it’s highly likely that we won’t have the Altair or lunar surface systems ready until the min-2020s. If ISS is decommissioned in 2020 there could be another gap between it and lunar exploration. Flexible path would at least give us something to do during that “gap”.

  • Bob Mahoney

    @common sense

    “I would stop laying the blame…”

    I’m not laying blame, I am suggesting that the Flexible Path is a double-edged sword that opens up (at least) two possible outcomes; while I believe the former outcome I listed above might be the best immediate way forward for reasons stated there and elsewhere, I consider (as I’ve also described before, for numerous reasons both historical and current) the latter as being the most likely.

    And also as I’ve stated before, I dearly hope I’m wrong on the second.

    Time will tell.

  • Bob Mahoney

    And, in fact, I have long suspected that a portion of the napkin-doodled conceptual impetus behind the broader ESAS architecture (NOT VSE, mind you) was an attempt at infusing political invulnerability into the program under the mistaken assumption that if it was packaged as one big tightly intertwined easy-to-understand scheme (See how similar it is to the way we did it successfully before? And see how it all fits together and each piece depends critically on every other piece?), it would be impossible to cancel any part of it without killing it all…and who in their right mind would envision any administration completely cancelling the entire American manned space program?

    No proof, just suspicions. The Flexible Path, by its very pieces-parts nature, is almost the polar opposite…and would thus be easily vulnerable to political cafeteria-line picking and choosing…down to whatever minimal portions are palatable for any administration in power.

  • common sense

    “And, in fact, I have long suspected that a portion of the napkin-doodled conceptual impetus behind the broader ESAS architecture (NOT VSE, mind you) was an attempt at infusing political invulnerability into the program under the mistaken assumption that if it was packaged as one big tightly intertwined easy-to-understand scheme (See how similar it is to the way we did it successfully before? And see how it all fits together and each piece depends critically on every other piece?), it would be impossible to cancel any part of it without killing it all…and who in their right mind would envision any administration completely cancelling the entire American manned space program? ”

    You know. I’ve had similar thinking since this thing started, I mean the ESAS/Constellation “conspiracy”. That by the time a new administration shows up it’d be too late and they would not be able to kill it. Unfortunately, or fortunately, in order to do so they would have had to be flying already as was intended initially. Flying something, anything. Ares 1-X won’t cut it as it is not a vehicle representative of the program!!! A LAS flight on the other hand… Well I guess you need people in charge to think better than that. Not that I particularly like Ares but come on. They could have done a lot better than that…

    Oh well…

Leave a Reply to Martijn Meijering 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>