NASA

Technical and other challenges in designing the SLS

On Monday NASA issued a brief release stating that it will hold a briefing Tuesday afternoon “discuss an agency decision that will define the next transportation system to carry humans into deep space”. That’s led to some speculation that NASA has reached a decision on the architecture of the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift vehicle. However, NASA officials speaking at a conference session last week gave no indication that a design decision was imminent.

“The agency is still working on what the integrated plan will be” for its exploration program, said Dan Dumbacher, deputy associate administrator for NASA’s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, during a panel session at the National Space Society’s International Space Development Conference (ISDC) in Huntsville, Alabama, on Thursday. “We are working that internally. That will become more public in the late spring/early summer timeframe” with the delivery to Congress of a report on those plans. (He later said that report would be done in late June or early July,) “We are working very hard to get all of the analysis done that we need to document those plans.”

Much of the hour-long ISDC panel session, with the vague title “Flight System Development Forum”, dealt with the process of developing a design for the SLS, although with fewer details about the design itself. “Some might ask what’s the biggest challenge for the SLS going forward,” said Todd May, the SLS program manager at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. “I really think at this point, based on the last year or so, it’s understanding and wading through the minefield of constituencies.” That includes, he said, “internal” constituencies that advocate various technical approaches as well as “external” constituencies, such as contractors, other government agencies, Congress, and the “commercial movement”. “That’s a pretty complex web, when you add all of that up, of constituencies.”

As teams evaluate a number of technical approaches, another area of emphasis has been how to efficiently manage such a program. While other agency teams looked at configurations based on liquid hydrogen or RP-1 propellants, said Garry Lyles, SLS chief engineer at NASA Marshall, another team has looked at the application of lean manufacturing concepts. “We are not going to operate the same way that we have been operating and come up with a new vehicle configuration and expect it to be affordable,” he said. “In other words, there is no perfect configuration.”

Panelists, though, offered fewer details about how that translates into a specific SLS design and how it will be procured. “We have not made a final selection on the procurement approach,” May said. “We certainly have the data we need to make that decision.” Dumbacher added that NASA will release those plans “as quickly as we can” after the delivery of the Congressional report. Lyles said a lot of major factors being weighed during the design process include tank diameter, engines (including engine costs, since the engines will not be reusable), and “complexity on the ground”, namely, the work required at the launch site to prepare the vehicles for launch. After the panel, May said their “end state” for the vehicle’s payload capacity is 130 tons, since that is what’s considered necessary for human Mars missions, but wouldn’t comment on any interim capacities.

“We want to get in to building hardware and get into the development as quickly as anyone does,” Dumbacher said. “I think that’s true of everyone involved in the process. We all want to be making progress as quickly as possible. We’re doing everything we can to get the right questions answered, do the right homework to make sure we’re doing the right things, and then get on with the development at hand and get moving on the next level of exploration.”

93 comments to Technical and other challenges in designing the SLS

  • amightywind

    How hard can it be to dust off the Direct proposal? The time for hand wringing debate has ended. Start cutting metal!

  • Commercial Movement

    On the one hand, Dan Dumbacher says :

    “We are not going to operate the same way that we have been operating and come up with a new vehicle configuration and expect it to be affordable,”

    On the other hand, Garry Lyles says:

    Lyles said a lot of major factors being weighed during the design process include tank diameter, engines (including engine costs, since the engines will not be reusable), and “complexity on the ground”, namely, the work required at the launch site to prepare the vehicles for launch.

    There you have the problem in a nutshell, MSFC hates reusability.

    Apparently Garry Lyles hasn’t gotten the memo.

    MSFC, the dinosaurs of our age.

  • Buddy R

    I agree Mighty. Let’s at least do something. Be prepared for all the rebuttals from the “space experts” that frequent this site.

  • How hard can it be to dust off the Direct proposal? The time for hand wringing debate has ended. Start cutting metal!

    Not that simple Windy. The next national launch system is supposed to be good for the next 50 years or so. 1960s/1970s shuttle-derived tech until mid-century ?

    Well, the powers that be might be happy…

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    Someone who’d I’d expect to be “in the know” on NASASpaceflight.com said that the the presser will be about MPCV.

    Purely speculation on my part but I wonder if Lockheed are going to use just the Ares-I downsized Orion or whether they are going to backtrack to the 606 planning version and work forwards from there, as SLS will have a far greater lift capacity than Ares-I.

    @ almightywind,

    From what I’ve seen, NASA aren’t planning to use anything like the DIRECT proposals. They’re going to re-invent the wheel to build a make-work D-SDLV to keep KSC from being closed down. After thaty, they’re going to go back to building Ares-V Classic (which is taller and uses a different engine thrust structure than the Jupiter). The make-work not-J-130 is intended to start flying a maximum of four pointless test-shots around 2016 and Ares-V-Classic Redux around 2022, according to their current schedule.

  • Justin Kugler

    I met Garry Lyles (and a few of the folks working on SLS) while I was at KSC last month. They are desperately trying to get this right without breaking the bank. These studies are being done to define the trades between performance, economy, and schedule so NASA can give an honest assessment to Congress of what can really be done.

    It’s not about “dusting off” old technical designs. As Lyles indicates in the above article, it’s about devising a heavy-lift design that NASA can actually live with. If the agency doesn’t get this right, it will find itself up the creek, yet again, and the people working SLS know this.

    Major project failures almost always include a failure to account for all of the relevant risks and stakeholder impacts in the planning phase.

  • Major Tom

    “How hard can it be to dust off the Direct proposal?”

    Jupiter-130/246 don’t make sense if SSME production is too costly to restart. Or if the mass of the -246 is running too close to the margins on the crawlers and new crawlers would be needed. Or if MPCV parachutes can’t escape the radiant heat from the SRBs during an abort.

    Even setting aside all the technical issues involved in Jupiter-130/246, the NASA team is in a no-win situation politically and contractually. Congress wants NASA to use the existing Constellation contracts, but if NASA does not compete the work, companies like Aerojet are guaranteeing protests that would tie up SLS for months to a couple years.

    spacenews.com/civil/110429-nasa-wary-protests-heavy-lift.html

    Between multiple unresolved technical issues, a no-win situation regardless of which contracting path is pursued, and the likelihood that Falcon Heavy will be launching at least 2-3 years before SLS, NASA should take its time with this decision. It will be the agency’s biggest investment over the next decade, and $16 billion or more in taxpayer dollars could get flushed down the drain if the decisionmaking process gets rushed.

    I’d also note that even the DIRECT team has moved on from Jupiter-130/246:

    http://www.directlauncher.com/

    FWIW…

  • Vladislaw

    How hard can it be to dust of the Falcon X proposal? The time for hand wringing debate has ended. Start cutting metal!

  • “I really think at this point, based on the last year or so, it’s understanding and wading through the minefield of constituencies.” That includes, he said, “internal” constituencies that advocate various technical approaches as well as “external” constituencies, such as contractors, other government agencies, Congress, and the “commercial movement”. “That’s a pretty complex web, when you add all of that up, of constituencies.”

    That sums up pretty well why the program is a Charlie Foxtrot.

  • tu8ca

    No, amightywind, there are still significant problems to solve; the glutenous old entrenched prime contractors still need to be weened from the teat.

    In decades past, the American public was happy to pay for the groundbreaking new technology coming from NASA and its contractors. Developing this type of technology typically comes with a 100x price tag. Unfortunately, with the Shuttle derived proposals, the prime contractors are keeping the 100x price tag but not creating any groundbreaking new technology. Nor have they endeavored to reduce costs – in fact doing so is not in their interest. This has to change.

    ~Just say No to corporate welfare.~

  • I think Mr. May hit the nail on the head
    “That’s a pretty complex web, when you add all of that up, of constituencies.”

    It’s the problem that’s plagued NASA in many programs and adds costs upon costs and delay upon delay. I think the advantage of “new commercial” in avoiding all this is most glaringly obvious in Mr. May’s statement, although I would add “new commercial” doesn’t have the answer to the heavy lift beyond 70T either. Elon Musk when asked about it, said on camera that he would NASA’s help in designing a new engine to achieve that sort lifting ability.

    Very interested to see what NASA has come up within all these parameters.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ May 24th, 2011 at 8:30 am

    How hard can it be to dust off the Direct proposal? The time for hand wringing debate has ended. Start cutting metal!

    Yes, and that worked so well for the Constellation architecture – just pick a choice without considering what the best solution is.

    At least you’re consistent Windy…

  • Szebeheley

    Does Direct result in a 130 ton vehicle? The law, twice stated, and for which funds are appropriated, requires a vehicle with a capacity of no less than 130 tons.

    Fortunately, with the SCJ Committee riding herd on NASA, the slow-roll of SLS and MPCV as well by the 9th Floor will end, at least on May 30th when the first of twice monthly briefings by NASA to the SCJ Committee begin. So progress should puck-up, along with news on that.

  • Major Tom

    “Yes, and that worked so well for the Constellation architecture – just pick a choice without considering what the best solution is.”

    In fairness to Constellation, that’s not actually what happened. There was a study, ESAS, but it was a rushed and flawed study. ESAS tried to do in three months what it took the Apollo Program 12-18 months to accomplish. Kennedy announced the lunar landing goal that led to Apollo in May 1961. Key Saturn V design decisions, like the five F-1 engines in the first stage and the J-2 engines in the second and third stages, weren’t made until the following summer (1962), a year or more after Kennedy’s announcement. The EOR versus LOR debate wasn’t settled until November 1962, a full year-and-a-half after Kennedy’s speech.

    These critical design decisions take time. I am very doubtful that NASA can make good decisions on MPCV and SLS, like the Orion MPCV decision being announced today, only month or few after the MPCV and SLS programs were started with the passage of NASA’s FY11 year-end CR.

    FWIW…

  • Michael from Iowa

    I’m honestly hoping at this point Bolden just walks up to the podium and says “**** it, we’re going commercial!”

    Unless they’ve got some groundbreaking new technology and designs they’re planning to implement, commercial is the best option – for the money that’ll get dumped into another Constellation program that’ll inevitably go overbudget or be cancelled in five years, we could fund the development of half a dozen domestic commercial vehicles. American private spaceflight could supplant the Soyuz and corner the market for orbital transport for the world’s space programs.

  • amightywind

    I like the thinking of the Direct2 folks. That is what I call disruptive. If you all would all lift your faces out of the muck and not dwell on EELV style rockets we might get somewhere.

  • Malmesbury

    Szebeheley 1 hr, 9 mins ago

    Direct can get you to 130 US tons – 130 metric might be problematic.

    The law in question implies 130 US – but NASA took it as metric…

  • Fortunately, with the SCJ Committee riding herd on NASA, the slow-roll of SLS and MPCV as well by the 9th Floor will end, at least on May 30th when the first of twice monthly briefings by NASA to the SCJ Committee begin. So progress should puck-up, along with news on that.

    Progress reports are not progress. But if they can fool Congress into thinking they are for a while, perhaps we won’t have to waste money on SLS much longer.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg wrote @ May 24th, 2011 at 10:50 am

    “I really think at this point, based on the last year or so, it’s understanding and wading through the minefield of constituencies.” That includes, he said, “internal” constituencies that advocate various technical approaches as well as “external” constituencies, such as contractors, other government agencies, Congress, and the “commercial movement”. “That’s a pretty complex web, when you add all of that up, of constituencies.”

    That sums up pretty well why the program is a Charlie Foxtrot……

    sums it up pretty well (grin) RGO

  • Egad

    > so NASA can give an honest assessment to Congress of what can really be done.

    Is NASA really that masochistic?

  • Major Tom

    “Does Direct result in a 130 ton vehicle?”

    It depends on which old DIRECT vehicle you’re talking about. There’s more than one. The Jupiter-246, yes. The Jupiter-130, no. They all share unresolved problems with the costs of restarting SSME production and safe aborts in the radiant heat environment of fragmenting SRBs. The -246 also has potential mass issues relative to the crawlers.

    And the DIRECT team has moved on from Jupiter-130/-246 to new vehicles that are not Shuttle-derived. See links at:

    http://www.directlauncher.com/

    “Fortunately, with the SCJ Committee riding herd on NASA, the slow-roll of SLS and MPCV as well by the 9th Floor will end…”

    There has been no “slow-roll”. The projects weren’t official and NASA couldn’t spend anything on MPCV and SLS until last month, when Congress finally passed the year-end CR.

    It’s Congress’s fault, not NASA’s, that six months elapsed between the passage of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act and FY11 appropriations

    “… at least on May 30th when the first of twice monthly briefings by NASA to the SCJ Committee begin.”

    All those briefings are going to do is create make-work and distract from the real job that needs to get done. Briefings to congressional staff (or anyone else) aren’t going to make a study get done or an agency decision get made any more quickly. In fact, they’ll just drag things out as time gets wasted preparing the briefings and traveling to/from Capitol Hill to give them.

    FWIW…

  • Commercial Movement

    I met Garry Lyles (and a few of the folks working on SLS) while I was at KSC last month. They are desperately trying to get this right without breaking the bank. These studies are being done to define the trades between performance, economy, and schedule so NASA can give an honest assessment to Congress of what can really be done.

    Well, if Garry Lyles has predetermined the tossing away of engines costing tens of millions of dollars apiece, it’s an epic fail right out of the box, guy.

    But we already know that, so nothing new to see here, folks, move along.

  • I think its been pretty clear for the last quarter of a century that a heavy lift vehicle that utilizes successful shuttle derived LH2/LOX technologies should be built.

    But I am rather surprised that there has been so much effort to examine the possibility of using a petroleum fueled RP-1 engine– especially since no American company is building them anymore (the RP-1 engines for the Atlas V are built in Russia) except for an amateur rocket company that goes by the name of Space X that produces the Merlin RP-1/LOX engine.

    Something tells me that Obama’s buddy Elon had some significant influence on getting the administration to push NASA to study a RP-1 option that could make Musk much richer than he already is if one of the purchasers of his engines for the new heavy lift vehicle is the US government and the tax payers.

  • Major Tom: “In fairness to Constellation, that’s not actually what happened. There was a study, ESAS, but it was a rushed and flawed study.”

    EASA was flawed because any approach that didn’t ‘require’ the Ares-1 was DOA. The best plan up and until Mike and Scott put their thumbs on the scale (and still visible to all with the ESAS Appendix) was the Direct approach. Bottom-line: the NASA engineers got it right six years ago but were over ruled by upper NASA management. I think I’ve heard this story before haven’t you?

    Look, it’s not that hard to figure out. The ‘optimal’ approach by definition is the one that can be achieved for the money and time window that is politically supportable by that approach. What part of the Constitution doesn’t everybody understand? If you want to have your own privately funded rocket company, go right ahead, nobody is stopping you. If you want public money you are going need to convince our collective elective representatives to support it.

    The plan before us is what our elected representatives hammered out six months ago that says to NASA all but “build DIRECT all ready”. A plan that is the same one NASA engineers wanted six years ago, a plan that passed the Senate unanimously, the House by over 2/3 and was signed into law by the President.

    The error made by 9th floor management six years ago was finally fixed six months ago. The rank and file engineers and contractors at NASA have been advocating this approach for over six years now and can pull it off for the budget and time provided via the political process.

    Unfortunately the Executive branch isn’t ‘executing’ the law they agreed to and signed not six months ago. Rather they are still attempting to ‘slow roll’ this and thereby sabotage all hope of maintaining a second to none American Space Program following the ISS/Shuttle era.

    This should come as no surprise to anyone given the present lack of American Exceptionalists within the Executive branch; which is clearly visible across a broad range of topics. A worldview they despise with a passion yet one that unites and brings pride to the hearts of everyone that make the achievements in the Space program possible. It is in fact the American Exceptionalist worldview that has been the driving force behind every one of America’s greatest achievements over the last four centuries.

  • name

    But you said Orion would never fly?
    Want some cheese with that wine?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen Metschan wrote @ May 24th, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    “Look, it’s not that hard to figure out. The ‘optimal’ approach by definition is the one that can be achieved for the money and time window that is politically supportable by that approach. What part of the Constitution doesn’t everybody understand? ”

    it must be hard to figure it out, you have definitely not done so.

    The “optimal” approach is the one that best meets mission requirements and is affordable.

    That kills DIRECT right there, even in the Griffin era. There is no indication that DIRECT is affordable or that it can be done with the money likely to be available…there are estimates that people in “your” group made, but they are as realistic as the estimates by Rumsfeld of what it would take to win in Iraq…ie they are based solely on the what is politically sale-able not what is actually doable.

    If you want to have your own privately funded rocket company, go right ahead, nobody is stopping you but dont be surprised if you roll up for public funds and there is almost no real political support behind it.

    If the Senate or the House or better yet both had thought that DIRECT was doable for the dollars advertised then they should have taken the B-1 approach to getting one built…But they didnt, they wouldnt because if they did then they were on the hook for funding the darn thing when the money estimates turned out wrong.

    Finally you wrote this:

    “This should come as no surprise to anyone given the present lack of American Exceptionalists”

    as you and Whittington and Wind and a bunch of others define “American Exceptionalism” all I can say is “thank the Creator”.

    American exceptionalism is not doing things that are done simply to do them; which do not change one wit the American experience for the rest of Americans but exist only to thump ones chest and in the process zap taxpayers for the money.

    American exceptionalism is defined in The Declaration of Independence..and in a space mode it is when we do things that THE ENTIRE NATION BENEFITS and grows stronger from.

    A HLV is a launch vehicle to nowhere except debt and DIRECT is just a goofy manifestation of that goofiness.

    Robert G. Oler

  • It is in fact the American Exceptionalist worldview that has been the driving force behind every one of America’s greatest achievements over the last four centuries.

    I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Apollo (and human spaceflight as done by NASA for the past half century) was not an example of American Exceptionalism — it was an exception to it. We just out-Sovieted the Soviets. When we have competition, markets and individuals driving decisions, we will finally have an American space program consonant with American Exceptionalism.

  • Major Tom

    “The ‘optimal’ approach by definition is the one that can be achieved for the money and time window that is politically supportable by that approach.”

    This ignores operational costs, reliability, and safety which must also be factored in.

    It also ignores options that can be achieved for less than the money and time window available.

    “The plan before us is what our elected representatives hammered out six months ago that says to NASA all but ‘build DIRECT all ready’.”

    Where was DIRECT or Jupiter or anything resembling them besides some confused references to payload masses made in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act?

    “A plan that is the same one NASA engineers wanted six years ago”

    What “NASA engineers”? Who? Where? How many? If few, why do they represent all “NASA engineers”?

    “Unfortunately the Executive branch isn’t ‘executing’ the law they agreed to and signed not six months ago. Rather they are still attempting to ‘slow roll’ this…”

    No one in the executive branch is slow-rolling anything. After the NASA Authorization Act, it took Congress six months to pass FY11 appropriations (actually a year-end continuing resolution) for NASA (and the rest of the government). The executive branch can’t start a project or direct funding to it if that project and its budget havn’t been approved in appropriations. Otherwise, the executive branch managers will be in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act.

    Your blame finger is pointed at the wrong branch of government.

    “and thereby sabotage all hope of maintaining a second to none American Space Program following the ISS/Shuttle era.”

    There’s not much worth “maintaining” among the Shuttle subsystems.

    The SSMEs, ETs, and associated fuel lines regularly leak gaseous hydrogen.

    There were leaks in 2010:

    news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-20022008-239.html

    In 2009:

    space-travel.com/reports/US_space_shuttle_launch_delayed_over_hydrogen_leak_999.html

    In 2007:

    usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-06-07-atlantis-fix-tank_N.htm

    In 2002:

    spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-02d.html

    In 1999 (when Columbia launched with one of these leaks):

    guardian.co.uk/science/1999/jul/29/spaceexploration1

    In 1995:

    articles.latimes.com/1995-09-29/news/mn-51341_1_space-shuttle-columbia

    And in 1990 (STS-35).

    On top of these gaseous hydrogen leaks, the ETs repeatedly suffer from structural cracking.

    It happened in 2010:

    spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts133/101115crack/

    In 2005:

    physorg.com/news/2010-11-shuttle-fuel-tank-foam.html

    And in 1991 (STS-39).

    And on top of these structural cracks and gaseous hydrogen leaks, parachute technology isn’t up to the job of recovering SRBs intact from non-Shuttle flights:

    universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/dent.jpg

    It’s a testament to the Shuttle workforce that this technical base has not led to more mission accidents and loss of crew. But given the risks that these components carry, the standing army required to avoid these risks, and the multi-month schedule delays they induce, the last thing you want to do is carry these components forward into a new launch system, SLS or otherwise.

    “This should come as no surprise to anyone given the present lack of American Exceptionalists within the Executive branch; which is clearly visible across a broad range of topics.”

    What are you talking about? The President routinely makes references to American exceptionalism, like this excerpt:

    “But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.

    “Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

    telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8487354/Osama-bin-Laden-killed-Barack-Obamas-speech-in-full.html

    The President wasn’t my pick for the job, either, but we shouldn’t make stuff up about him to falsely support our pet projects.

    “A worldview they despise with a passion yet one that unites and brings pride to the hearts of everyone that make the achievements in the Space program possible.”

    The justification for the nation’s various human space flight program has historically had little to do with American exceptionalism (and more to do with foreign relations). Apollo was driven by Cold War fears of Soviet missile supremacy after Sputnik and Gagarin. It was war by different means. ISS was only stabilized after the Russians were brought into the post-Cold War partnership. It was foreign aid by different means.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “But I am rather surprised that there has been so much effort to examine the possibility of using a petroleum fueled RP-1 engine…”

    If you knew anything about rocket engines, you wouldn’t be surprised. Kerosene is a much more dense propellant than liquid hydrogen, which results in smaller, less expensive first stages. Kerosene is easier to store than hydrogen, which results in less expensive operations. And kerosene is less demanding on pumps and combustion chambers than hydrogen, which results in simpler, less expensive engines.

    Moreover, there are serious reliability and safety issues associated with hydrogen, especially the SSMEs, ETs, and associated fuel lines, which regularly leak gaseous hydrogen.

    There were leaks in 2010:

    news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-20022008-239.html

    In 2009:

    space-travel.com/reports/US_space_shuttle_launch_delayed_over_hydrogen_leak_999.html

    In 2007:

    usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-06-07-atlantis-fix-tank_N.htm

    In 2002:

    spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-02d.html

    In 1999 (when Columbia launched with one of these leaks):

    guardian.co.uk/science/1999/jul/29/spaceexploration1

    In 1995:

    articles.latimes.com/1995-09-29/news/mn-51341_1_space-shuttle-columbia

    And in 1990 (STS-35).

    “especially since no American company is building them anymore (the RP-1 engines for the Atlas V are built in Russia)”

    Don’t you think that maybe the decades-long history of success in Russia with reliable, low-cost kerosene engines on vehicles like Soyuz has something to do with why they’re so desireable in the US?

    Think before you post.

    “… except for an amateur rocket company that goes by the name of Space X that produces the Merlin RP-1/LOX engine.”

    So all 1,200 employees at SpaceX are “amateurs”?

    Take your slime elsewhere.

    Ugh…

  • Major Tom

    “But you said Orion would never fly?”

    I’m not sure who this is directed at. But if it’s in reference to today’s Orion-based MPCV announcement, unless Doug Cooke is also announcing a test flight on a Delta IV Heavy, Orion still has no launch vehicle. And there’s still no indication that NASA will be able to close on an SLS design that meets the payload, budget, schedule, and contract/workforce requirements in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act. Or that there is a path forward on SLS that can avoid months to years of crippling protests and lawsuits from industry.

    FWIW…

  • Justin Kugler

    Commercial Movement, are you talking about a reusable HLV or just a recoverable engine pod or what? I think you’re reading too much into a comparison between the SSMEs and more conventional expendable engines. One of Lyles’ teams very clearly showed that the optimal configuration for minimizing lifecycle costs was based on RP-1.

  • Commercial Movement

    Commercial Movement, are you talking about a reusable HLV or just a recoverable engine pod or what?

    SSMEs lifted by anything solid or liquid are going to orbit. Anyone who suggests they should be allowed to reenter the atmosphere unprotected while connected to $100 million dollars of cryogenic tankage at orbital velocity needs to get their head examined. That would be JSC and MSFC.

    What, pray tell, do you expect space suited astronauts in LEO to be doing for the next ten years or so, repairing the ISS? Twiddling their thunbs?

    The engines are irreplaceable, easily refurbished and worth $100 million.

    Enjoying the view at taxpayer expense?

  • Frank

    Falcon Heavy 60 tons LV will be on the launch pad next year! That’s more exciting than any new Nasa LV that wont fly anytimes soon, if ever. Nasa should cut metal to do some Mars Hardware instead. Now that would be an exciting program!

    From one Canadian point of view.

  • common sense

    @name wrote @ May 24th, 2011 at 3:13 pm

    “But you said Orion would never fly?”

    Never, nor will SLS.

    “Want some cheese with that wine?”

    That’d be nice. Thanks.

  • Coastal Ron

    Major Tom wrote @ May 24th, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    But if it’s in reference to today’s Orion-based MPCV announcement, unless Doug Cooke is also announcing a test flight on a Delta IV Heavy, Orion still has no launch vehicle.

    Here’s a wild idea. Instead of using a $450M Delta IV Heavy to test the MPCV, why not put it on the first Falcon Heavy?

    So what if it blows up, since at some point they probably want to do an inflight abort test anyways. And if it miraculously doesn’t fail, then you still get to test the LAS jettison and splash down of the capsule. All for probably $100M or less for the launcher.

    Other than launching out of Vandenberg, I don’t see any downsides.

  • common sense

    @ Major Tom wrote @ May 24th, 2011 at 9:44 am

    “I’d also note that even the DIRECT team has moved on from Jupiter-130/246:”

    However interesting those concepts are, what credibility is there they will be achieved technically and financially?

    Odd.

  • common sense

    Oh and btw, the OML and crew configs for the reentry vehicle are just plain nutty. Piled up or in circle holding hands? Unless they have some sort of retro rockets for landing you can fo’get all’bout it. And the one with crew in a large circle holding hands, how do they plan to mitigate all the accelerations on reentry?

    Odd. 2.

  • common sense

    Forgot…

    “… on reentry” AND on abort!

    Odd. 3.

  • pathfinder_01

    LOX/Kerosne has its advantages. LOX/Kerosene gives more thrust than LOX/LOH this results in lower gravity losses in the first stage. In fact old Saturn V was LOX/Keronese in its first stange. LOX/LOH is better in 2nd and 3rd stages.

    The shuttle for instance requires SRB because its main engine thrust is slow low. The SRBs increase costs. In fact the shuttle needs three different engines for each flight. You need Solids, SSMEE, and OMS each of which take different propellants and need different handling. Delta’s RS-68 trades some ISP for trust but then in some versions of ARES the lower ISP of the RS-68 vs. the SSME and the low density of hydrogen resulted in rockets so big they barely fit in the VAB!

    LOX/LOH has the greastest ISP but in the real world that ISP advantage comes at the expense of being cheap and ISP isn’t the total messure of a rocket’s performance. Kerosense is dense and remains a liquid under a wide range of temperatures. This means for an equivalent amount of chemical energy the Kerosene rocket will use smaller tanks with less insulation than the Hydrogen one. The means that the Kerosense rocket will be have a lighter dry weight (easier to handle) and this will improve its performance against the LOX/Hydrogen one. i.e. Despite the ISP difference in the real world you don’t get as much advantage as you would think.

    Anyway Atlas I, II, III, and V were all LOX/Kerosene( in the first stage) and so are Saturn I, Saturn V , and Delta II.

  • pathfinder_01

    “So what if it blows up, since at some point they probably want to do an inflight abort test anyways. And if it miraculously doesn’t fail, then you still get to test the LAS jettison and splash down of the capsule. All for probably $100M or less for the launcher.”

    They want to test its systems in space not test the LAS. In fact it might not carry a working LAS at all. They do want to test the LAS separation system but that does not need a fullying functional LAS. For this you would use the rocket which gives best odds of getting to space which atm is Delta and you want to use a rocket that is exsisting(i.e. you can order now).

  • common sense

    Here is a problem, major. Assume for some reason they keep trying to build the MPCV. What launchers is that supposed to go atop of? As I have said time and again. It is an integrated design. If you design the vehicle for Delta or FH then you’ll have to redesign it for SLS. The LAS will not work for both. They will have different ascent trajectory, different re-contact scenarios, different on-pad abort. Come on. They cannot design it from the get go to fly on all LVs. Especially on LVs that don’t yet exist. They already tried with Ares…

    Still very little imagination and critical thinking from those people.

    What a waste. So sad.

  • Das Boese

    “After the panel, May said their “end state” for the vehicle’s payload capacity is 130 tons, since that is what’s considered necessary for human Mars missions”

    Which is of course completely ridiculous.
    The reason we’re not going to Mars isn’t because we don’t have big enough rockets. It’s because, currently, we don’t even know what to do there, aside from the minor problem of surviving the trip.

  • If you want to launch a manned capsule with a LAS (I do not think it is needed) it would certainly be preferable to use a liquid fueled booster in which thrust can be terminated in the event of an abort, instead of pulling 20Gs trying to escape from a booster that is trying to run you down. It would also be preferable to use a lightweight capsule. If you do these two things, you can avoid the gigantic rocket mounted on the top of the Orion and probably use a liquid-prepellant bottom-mounted system that could also be used for landing decelleration, as in the Dragon.

  • pathfinder_01

    SLS is the only launcher that is expected to carry Orion. Delta would need to be man rated and the first versions of FH won’t be considered man rated. There are no plans to man rate delta although ULA was pushing for this option. FH is not expected to launch anything for NASA HSF.

    Now there is a way around this problem for instance if Orion were launched without its crew then any launcher could launch it and you could board it via a commercial craft. Or you could design three different LAS that are fitted to the capsule for each rocket.

    The smart move if you wanted fast BEO exploration would be to man rate Delta, build payloads like earth departure stages and HABs for FH and get on with it. However this is politically not possible because delta does not use the shuttle workforce and won’t need anywhere near as many people as anything shuttle derived to do the job.

  • LH2 is only 98 cents a gallon at the pad, cheaper than RP-1, but the 20K boiling point and low density make it problematic. It is still probably a good idea for direct launch to GTO and interplanetary trajectories (the Delta IV Heavy has an advantage there) but for LEO the advantage is questionable. The Zenit carries 13.7 metric tons to LEO with only LOX/RP-1 as propellants in all three stages, and the Falcon 9 carries 10.5 MT with only two LOX/RP stages.

  • @Major Tom

    An RP-1 HLV would still rely on a LOX/LH2 upper stage to achieve orbit so we’d still be using liquid hydrogen which you claim is too unreliable to use.

    RP-1 also makes us dependent on foreign petroleum and on Russian engines, again, unless this is a scheme to get Obama’s buddy Elon a rocket engine contract with NASA. And until RP-1 fuels are derived from carbon neutral resources, they will also be a source of global warming, climate change, and global sea rise.

    The RS-25 LOX/LH2 engines have proved their reliability on the space shuttle for 30 years with no serious malfunctions or fatalities involving the SSME thanks to their engine out capability. And hydrogen and oxygen can be derived from the electrolysis of water from nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, and solar energy, energy sources not dependent on hostile foreign countries.

  • red

    I didn’t hear the MPCV briefing, but I see that it uses Orion and its contracts.

    Is there any indication that Orion can meet the 2016 deadline that’s in the law? What about the budget constraints? Wasn’t NASA just saying it couldn’t do it with their Orion-based reference design? Was there an independent review of the Orion-based MPCV schedule and cost? I wouldn’t want NASA to break the law by picking a solution that has no hope of meeting what the law demands.

  • pathfinder_01

    “An RP-1 HLV would still rely on a LOX/LH2 upper stage to achieve orbit so we’d still be using liquid hydrogen which you claim is too unreliable to use.”

    It puts the Lox/Hydrogen stage where it works best as an 2nd or 3rd or upper stage. The Stages of a rocket are optimized differently. It is desirable to have a high thrust first stage for two reasons:

    1. It quickly gets you far away from the ground/low altitude where gravity losses are greatest

    2. It quickly gets you through the thick lower atmosphere where losses to drag are greatest.

    For a 2nd stage thrust is less important and for an in space stage like an upper stage thrust is even less important. This is why rockets have SRBS by the way. Solid rockets are high trust but low ISP. LOX/Kerosene has more isp than a Solid and more thrust than Lox/hydrogen making it a good choice for a 1st stage.

    In fact early plans for the Saturn V would have been all Kerosene. The Lox/Kerosene 1st stage combined with a lox Hydrogen 2nd and 3rd stage was Saturn V’s Secret. The Soviet N1 was all Lox/kerosene and a larger rocket but could only lift 70MT!

    “RP-1 also makes us dependent on foreign petroleum and on Russian engines, again, unless this is a scheme to get Obama’s buddy Elon a rocket engine contract with NASA. And until RP-1 fuels are derived from carbon neutral resources, they will also be a source of global warming, climate change, and global sea rise.”

    There are US RP1 engines that can be developed and you can use develop an Merlin 2. This is a weak point where development can help. We choose the wrong road in the 70ies with large SRBs on the Titian III and Shuttle they lead to higher operating costs for both than if we had developed larger Lox/kerosene. It is a sad fact that the US has no engine comparable to the RD180 and the RD180 is more advance than the SSME…at least the RD-180 is 1980ies technology and it has behaved quite well.

    Atlas V so far has had 26 launches with 1 partial failure where the payload was put in a lower orbit-a crew would have survivied). The shuttle in a lower orbit on mission 19 exploded on number 25.

    “The RS-25 LOX/LH2 engines have proved their reliability on the space shuttle for 30 years with no serious malfunctions or fatalities involving the SSME thanks to their engine out capability. And hydrogen and oxygen can be derived from the electrolysis of water from nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, and solar energy, energy sources not dependent on hostile foreign countries”

    That isn’t how it is created. Hydrogen created that way would be far more expensive than it is. Hydrogen is currently produced from Methane or other hydrocarbons and does release CO2 in the process.

  • Bennett

    Marcel wrote: “unless this is a scheme to get Obama’s buddy Elon a rocket engine contract with NASA”

    Other than the one visit to the SpaceX launch pad while the President was visiting KSC, do you have anything, and I mean anything, that indicates they’ve ever had any other contact?

    Dinner dates? Bowling nights? Pick-em-up basketball at the White House?

    Well?

    Your comments continue to spiral downward into the abyss of incoherence and trolldom.

  • amightywind

    LOX/Kerosne has its advantages. LOX/Kerosene gives more thrust than LOX/LOH this results in lower gravity losses in the first stage. In fact old Saturn V was LOX/Keronese in its first stange. LOX/LOH is better in 2nd and 3rd stages.

    An ancient and silly discussion refuted for 30 years by the stage and a half design space shuttle. They key is to mitigate air losses with solid rocket boosters and take advantage of hydrogen at altitude. Direct and Ares depend on the idea. Will you never learn? The first stage of the Saturn V was not the key to the moon. It was the second.

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ May 24th, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    RP-1 also makes us dependent on foreign petroleum and on Russian engines

    Like the amount we put in one rocket makes a dent in how much oil this nation consumes. Just out of curiosity, have you given up your gas powered car yet?

    unless this is a scheme to get Obama’s buddy Elon a rocket engine contract with NASA

    Actually it’s a Russian/Chinese scheme to own the launch market, and thus beat us back to the Moon. Your conspiracy theory is an old one from last month – you have to keep up…

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ May 24th, 2011 at 9:05 pm

    “The first stage of the Saturn V was not the key to the moon. It was the second.”

    LOL Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “Here’s a wild idea. Instead of using a $450M Delta IV Heavy to test the MPCV, why not put it on the first Falcon Heavy?”

    Good point.

    “However interesting those concepts are, what credibility is there they will be achieved technically and financially?”

    Financially, I’d say zero. I don’t see any development cost estimate, which itself may be indicative of the seriousness (or lack thereof) of the design exercise. But even setting aside the costs of developing the new technologies involved in Leviathan, it’s a huge vehicle. Cost estimates go by mass, and the investment to first operations will be equally huge. It’s hard to see development of these vehicles being within the purse of any government or private investor. And that assumes that someone (or multiple someones) have budgets that could actually make use of this much upmass.

    (As an aside, the operational costs are very unrealistic. The per launch price for Leviathan is quoted at $60 million for 140,000kg to LEO. That was the going price for a Delta II back in the day, arguably the most efficient US launch vehicle with a sizable launch record. But Delta II only put a little over 6,000kg into LEO. That’s a difference of 23x in payload for the same price. And on a totally reusable vehicle to boot. I’d believe a factor of a few or a handful, but not 23x.)

    Technically, there’s nothing wrong a priori with new technologies like annular aerospikes, water launch, and liquid stage water recovery. But there’s no development program laid out. At a minimum, you’d want to test things like annular aerospike performance to orbit on subscale demonstration vehicles to validate the full-scale design decisions before biting off their development costs. Same goes for operationalizing sea launch or demonstrating that a liquid stage can be recovered intact after a sea landing. You want to try these things out at the level of $10-100x millions, not $1-10x billions. Put another way, show me the Falcon 1(s) for something like Leviathan, and I (or someone else) can tell you whether you have technical case for ever building something like Leviathan.

    (Another aside, the cartoons show parachutes, but the mass of Leviathan stages is far beyond any existing or forseeable parachute technology. The five-stage SRB on Ares I was actually pushing the limits of parachutes. Leviathan would require some disruptive decelerator technology, maybe inflatable.)

    If the DIRECT team is serious, they should talk to Loral, which has actually looked into a very cheap sea launch concept called Aquarius. Loral went the expendable high flight rate (rather than enormous reusable booster) route. But the Loral guys probably have a lot of lessons learned for another sea launch concept, regardless of booster size. And something like Aquarius would be a nice, cheap, sub-scale test vehicle for something much bigger like Leviathan.

    FWIW…

  • pathfinder_01

    Actually, wind the third stage of Saturn V was what sent the crew to the moon.

    The problem with solids or atleast the solids of the shuttle is the fact that they are prefuel with a toxic fuel increasing handling cost and the fact that they add great mass to the shuttle system. In fact the Shuttle stack masses more than a Saturn V dry. The VAB and Crawlers had to be beefed up to handle the extra mass of the Shuttle vs. the Saturn V.

  • Bennett

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 24th, 2011 at 9:26 pm

    LOL Robert G. Oler

    Ha! …fist bump.

    How’s that daughter of yours? She must be crawling all over by now?

  • pathfinder_01

    In fact the Large SRBs seem to be on the way out. Titain III/IV used them but no new US rocket uses them. EELV use smaller GEM rockets and the Ariane V uses some that are based on a French ICBM.

  • common sense

    @ pathfinder_01 wrote @ May 24th, 2011 at 5:49 pm

    “Now there is a way around this problem for instance if Orion were launched without its crew then any launcher could launch it and you could board it via a commercial craft.”

    What would be the point of MPCV then? Why would we need one?

    “Or you could design three different LAS that are fitted to the capsule for each rocket.”

    Oh sure, just tempt them! At about $1B a piece I’d like to see that.

    “The smart move if you wanted fast BEO exploration would be to man rate Delta, build payloads like earth departure stages and HABs for FH and get on with it. However this is politically not possible because delta does not use the shuttle workforce and won’t need anywhere near as many people as anything shuttle derived to do the job.”

    The smart move is actually ongoing. The MPCV/SLS train wreck will slowly take HSF, at lest the to-LEO part of it, out of the Shuttle infrastructure. We will pay for several years so that the workforce is not disbanded right away but in the end there will be no MPCV and no SLS. The way they want to go about it still is like Orion/Ares where the lack of integrated design was a killer. The thing will die a slow death and that’s about it. That and several billions.

  • Major Tom

    “Here is a problem, major. Assume for some reason they keep trying to build the MPCV. What launchers is that supposed to go atop of?”

    Per today’s press conference, NASA has no clue what MPCV’s LV will be:

    spacepolicyonline.com/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1583:few-details-about-path-forward-on-orion-in-nasa-press-conference&catid=67:news&Itemid=27

    But honestly, that’s the least of MPCV’s/Orion’s problems. NASA does “not know how much more the program will cost or how much an individual Orion spacecraft will cost” or what “the schedule for test flights or flights with crews aboard” will be other than “it probably would be after 2016.”

    Yet, despite all these unknowns and uncertainties surrounding Orion and its inability to meet schedule, NASA’s internal “studies of alternatives” have deemed the Orion spacecraft “the best approach to building a spacecraft for human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit (LEO).”

    So we don’t know how much Orion costs or when Orion will be done (or what Orion will launch on) but it still beats out all the other options for MPCV.

    Right…

    This would be hilarious if it wasn’t such an important issue and such a pathetic response.

    “If you design the vehicle for Delta or FH then you’ll have to redesign it for SLS. The LAS will not work for both. They will have different ascent trajectory, different re-contact scenarios, different on-pad abort.”

    Pathfinder already covered this, but I’ll just reiterate that if MPCV is launching unmanned (for test flights, cargo transport, or otherwise), no LAS/LES is needed and Delta IV and Falcon Heavy (or any other suitably large LV, whether “human rated” or not) will work just fine.

    “As I have said time and again. It is an integrated design… They cannot design it from the get go to fly on all LVs.”

    Yes and no. It’s never been done, but there are ways to adapt capsules and even launch abort systems to multiple launchers. I don’t know if this was SpaceX’s intent, but the embedded liquid launch abort system that Dragon plans to employ opens up a lot of possibilities in this regard.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “An RP-1 HLV would still rely on a LOX/LH2 upper stage to achieve orbit so we’d still be using liquid hydrogen”

    The Soyuz is all kerosene in all stages. It gets to orbit without any hydrogen in any stage.

    Falcons (1, 9, and Heavy) are all kerosene in all stages. They get to orbit without any hydrogen in any stage.

    The Proton gets to orbit without any hydrogen in any stage. It uses nothing but UDMH and kerosene.

    The future Angara family is all kerosene in all stages. They will get to orbit without any hydrogen in any stage.

    Don’t make idiotic statements out of ignorance.

    “RP-1 also makes us dependent on foreign petroleum…”

    When did all the US petroleum companies stop domestic production?

    Don’t waste this forum’s time with idiotic statements.

    “…and on Russian engines”

    The US is not dependent on Russian kerosene engines. The Merlin 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and Vacuum are all produced domestically.

    Stop making idiotic statements out of ignorance.

    “unless this is a scheme to get Obama’s buddy Elon a rocket engine contract with NASA.”

    How is Musk the President’s “buddy”?

    Did they grow up together?

    Did they go to the same school?

    Do they share the same workplace?

    Do they share a hobby in common?

    Do they hang out together?

    Stop wasting this forum’s time with idiotic statements.

    “And until RP-1 fuels”

    It’s “fuel”, singular. There are not multiple kinds of RP-1 “fuels”.

    Stop making idiotic statements out of ignorance.

    “are derived from carbon neutral resources, they will also be a source of global warming, climate change, and global sea rise.”

    The exhaust from all the launch vehicles in all the world is a miniscule fraction of all human combustion products. They make no measurable contribution to climate change.

    Stop making idiotic statements out of ignorance.

    “The RS-25 LOX/LH2 engines have proved their reliability on the space shuttle for 30 years…”

    No, they havn’t. The Shuttle launch record is littered with multi-week and multi-month delays induced by hydrogen leaks from the SSME. (See my earlier post.) You could not mount a multi-launch human space exploration mission with this lack of reliability.

    Sigh…

  • Vladislaw

    “They key is to mitigate air losses with solid rocket boosters and take advantage of hydrogen at altitude. Direct and Ares depend on the idea.”

    Guess we can conclude that the only heavy lift in line launch vehicle that will be funded is one that doesn’t included SRB’s. could it be the reason direct and ares are not currently being funded.

  • Major Tom

    “Is there any indication that Orion can meet the 2016 deadline that’s in the law?”

    No. In fact, Doug Cooke stated that flights “probably would be after 2016, the date specified in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act.”

    spacepolicyonline.com/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1583:few-details-about-path-forward-on-orion-in-nasa-press-conference&catid=67:news&Itemid=27

    “What about the budget constraints?”

    There are none. Doug Cooke said that “NASA had spent about $5 billion on Orion so far, but did not know how much more the program will cost or how much an individual Orion spacecraft will cost.”

    Link above.

    “Was there an independent review of the Orion-based MPCV schedule and cost?”

    No. According to Cooke, NASA’s internal “studies of alternatives” have deemed Orion “the best approach to building a spacecraft for human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit (LEO).” How Cooke can come to that conclusion when he can’t even quote a price or schedule for Orion with which to compare it to alternatives is beyond me, but it is what it is.

    Sad and pathetic. They aren’t even trying anymore.

    Sigh…

  • Major Tom

    “An ancient and silly discussion refuted for 30 years by the stage and a half design space shuttle.”

    I’m pretty sure that 45 years of all-kerosene Soyuz operation trump that metric.

    Don’t make idiotic statements out of ignorance.

    “They key is to mitigate air losses with solid rocket boosters and take advantage of hydrogen at altitude.”

    Yes, it makes so much sense to go to the expense and trouble of adding a second engine type and booster stages when one engine type and one stage will do.

    Don’t waste this forum’s time with idiotic statements.

    “Direct and Ares depend on the idea.”

    And boy, those LV concepts are off to a rocking start!

    “The first stage of the Saturn V was not the key to the moon. It was the second.”

    And it was launched without solid booster stages or a hydrogen core stage.

    Think before you post.

    Cripes…

  • Dennis Berube

    I dont seem to recall much of a problem with Hydrogen in the days of Apollo. The Saturn 5 got off on time, most of the time. I dont remember hydrogen leaks as a constant problem like with the shuttle.

  • amightywind

    And it was launched without solid booster stages or a hydrogen core stage. Think before you post.

    My point was that the light weight and high performance of the Saturn S-II was they key propulsion innovation of the Saturn V. Please learn something about the Saturn V vehicle before you repeat your tiresome slogans.

  • Scott Bass

    It will be interesting to see if the naysayers embrace the SLS after this finally materializes as a real plan…… I guess there will always be some people that think the path is wrong but seeing metal being cut may quiet down some objections.
    I still remember feeling pretty bad when the shuttle was designed without capability for BEO, it was a beautiful machine though and holds a special place in the hearts of millions, faults and all

  • Major Tom

    “My point was that the light weight and high performance of the Saturn S-II was they key propulsion innovation of the Saturn V.”

    Then you should have made that point. Don’t blame me if you can’t express yourself clearly.

    “Please learn something about the Saturn V vehicle…”

    I’m not the poster implying that the first stage mitigated “air losses with solid rocket boosters”.

    “… before you repeat your tiresome slogans.”

    You mean like the tiresome insults that you repeatedly hurl at the rest of the forum:

    “If you all would all lift your faces out of the muck…”

    Grow up or go away.

    Ugh…

  • common sense

    @ Major Tom wrote @ May 24th, 2011 at 10:40 pm

    “Yes and no. It’s never been done, but there are ways to adapt capsules and even launch abort systems to multiple launchers. ”

    But see, this is part of the culprit. They want to build an “inexpensive” (cheap?) system if they want to launch by 2016. Going unknown routes like that where you can develop a multi-LV LAS is not going to be cheap, far from it. A LAS on its own already is a LV. A LAS that you can put on multiple LVs????

    Won’t happen in this side of the Universe. Not a chance. Not with this budget and people.

    As I said. Sad, very sad.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ May 25th, 2011 at 8:48 am

    My point was that the light weight and high performance of the Saturn S-II was they key propulsion innovation of the Saturn V.

    Great. If we build the Saturn V again then maybe we’ll use that same hydrogen stage design. But to say that a portion of the Saturn V design has to be used on every future launch vehicle is truly stupid.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bennett wrote @ May 24th, 2011 at 10:04 pm

    “How’s that daughter of yours? She must be crawling all over by now?”

    Lorelei crawled for about a week when she was about 8 months old…and then started walking. She is running “all over” now.

    Yesterday we discovered what happens when the garden hose is coupled to a PVC pipe…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Delta would need to be man rated and the first versions of FH won’t be considered man rated.

    I wish that people would stop using the phrase “man rated” as though they knew what it means. In fact, I wish that we could purge the archaic concept from our vocabulary entirely.

  • pathfinder_01

    “I wish that people would stop using the phrase “man rated” as though they knew what it means. In fact, I wish that we could purge the archaic concept from our vocabulary entirely.”

    In the case of FH it means that Space X will not put a person on top of it till they get some more flight history. In the case of Delta Heavy it means that NASA and ULA will not evaluate and adapt Delta Heavy for use with a manned spacecraft.

    All the commercail crew craft plan to use Atlas. The EDS that ULA developed will work on either rocket but Atlas needs the least amount of changes.

  • common sense

    I think I’d say that in NASA’s defense. Congress told NASA what to build, Congress almost imposed the design. Congress is the customer. Well NASA of course MUST say that Orion is the best vehicle. What could they say? They already tried to tell them they could not build the SLS on Congress’ terms yet Congress told NASA they were “confused”.

    NASA is mandated to waste billions on SLS and MPCV. Nothing else. Why wasted? Guess… Because they will never, ever fly. NEVER.

    A waste, a sad waste.

  • Major Tom

    “But see, this is part of the culprit. They want to build an ‘inexpensive’ (cheap?) system if they want to launch by 2016. Going unknown routes like that where you can develop a multi-LV LAS is not going to be cheap, far from it. A LAS on its own already is a LV. A LAS that you can put on multiple LVs????”

    I agree with you that it’s a moot point for Orion/MPCV. NASA has had a hard time getting Orion to fit on just one vehicle (Ares I). I would have strong reservations about trying to get Orion to fit on two unless the second was just an uncrewed test flight or deep backup option. And the solid LAS on Orion probably precludes multiple LVs for crewed MPCV missions, anyway.

    But adapting a reasonably sized capsule to multiple LVs is not necessarily an expensive proposition. I think if you’re smart about about the health monitoring system/interface and use an integrated liquid abort system, switching from one LV to another should just be a matter of changing the software loads and the mechanical interface. Again, I don’t know if this is what SpaceX and Blue Origin have in mind, but their choice of liquid abort systems might help set up Dragon and Origin’s biconic crew capsule for such a capability.

    FWIW…

  • amightywind

    I wish that people would stop using the phrase “man rated” as though they knew what it means.

    But that would remove one of the most effective tools for the NASA traditionalist in refuting newspace. They would prefer to bypass the burden of compliance. What aerospace manufacturer wouldn’t? I will go on using it where the term applies.

  • common sense

    Well “man-rating” is not appropriately used since people assume there is such a universal document that states what it is. What most don’t realize is that even NASA does not really know what “man-rating” really is. I think the confusion stems from the following: There is a notion that if you put some one on top of an LV then it MUST be man rated and we all know it is not true. Since man rating does not apply to either Soyuz or Shuttle.

    Whether the design uses an additional safety factor of 1.3 or 1.4 for structures, TPS or whatever is NOT on its own “man-rating”, or at least should not be.

    The real definition ought to be related to the mitigation of LOC: When you know that the crew on launch is more likely to survive than die, then and only then should your LV be man rated. Or something like that.

  • common sense

    @Major Tom wrote @ May 25th, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    “But adapting a reasonably sized capsule to multiple LVs is not necessarily an expensive proposition. I think if you’re smart about about the health monitoring system/interface and use an integrated liquid abort system, switching from one LV to another should just be a matter of changing the software loads and the mechanical interface. Again, I don’t know if this is what SpaceX and Blue Origin have in mind, but their choice of liquid abort systems might help set up Dragon and Origin’s biconic crew capsule for such a capability.”

    Well sure if you have a way to “throttle” thrust and Isp and to vector the LAV properly you might have a multi-LV LAS. Note that it is not about the LAS “tower” only. You MUST fly with the capsule or biconic or whatever, without killing the crew – kind of obvious I think. So it is not about the ability to fire a “third stage” off the LV only. There are many, many reasons why it’ll be difficult. Then there are the constraints put on the CM (for lack of better term) post abort, including and not limited to heating. All of those issues must be accounted for in the design of you LAS or more properly LAV where LAV = LAS + CM.

    The major difference with SpaceX (I don’t know about BO) is that SpaceX is designing Dragon and their LVs concurrently. Not so for MPCV and SLS or whatever LV. MPCV essentially is Orion, designed for Ares I. This is a train wreck. They could not master the requirements for one LV, Ares I and now they will potentially do it for multiple LVs????

    Nope. Not a chance.

  • Major Tom

    “I think I’d say that in NASA’s defense. Congress told NASA what to build, Congress almost imposed the design. Congress is the customer. Well NASA of course MUST say that Orion is the best vehicle. What could they say?”

    Per the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, NASA could say, based on the following analysis/studies/solicitations, Orion is not a “practical” solution to the MPCV budget/schedule requirements laid out in the law. But alternatives B, C, and D are. We recommend D as the best solution.

    (Or, NASA could say that Orion is the most “practical” solution to MPCV based on the following analysis/studies/solicitations, including an understanding of what Orion/MPCV’s costs and schedule are likely to be.)

    But instead, the NASA Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems (Doug Cooke) is saying that, despite the fact that he has no idea how much Orion/MPCV will cost and that Orion/MPCV probably won’t make the 2016 deadline in the law, Orion is still the best solution for MPCV. To put it lightly, that’s insane. It’s one thing to base a decision off erroneous data and rushed analysis, as happened with ESAS and Constellation. It’s another to base a decision on a total absence of data and analysis. If not cost, schedule, performance, and risk, then what was basis of this decision? Palm reading? Astrology? What?

    I don’t know if NASA/ESMD has been cowed by congressional interests, has given up and doesn’t care anymore, or is just being plain lazy, but decisionmakers, the human space flight program, taxpayers, and NASA and contractor employees deserve much, much better.

    My 2 cents… FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “But that would remove one of the most effective tools for the NASA traditionalist in refuting newspace. They would prefer to bypass the burden of compliance.”

    If human rating requirements and processes are just “tools” for “refuting newspace” and a “burden”, then they serve no practical or useful purpose and should be eliminated.

    Duh…

  • amightywind

    But adapting a reasonably sized capsule to multiple LVs is not necessarily an expensive proposition. I think if you’re smart about about the health monitoring system/interface and use an integrated liquid abort system,

    The pusher abort system is the dumbest idea I have heard. Why on earth carry the weight penalty of fuel and engines to orbit and then all the way to the ground when you only really need them for the first 3 minutes of flight? They are gross overkill for deorbit burns. Also, an aborting spacecraft is negatively stable so the thrust on the pusher system has to be vectorable too. Crazy. I laugh when pusher supporters talk about using it for landing. What a hack. If you really had to to the job, small solid landing rockets would suffice. But we launch from the Cape. How ’bout landing 5 miles off of the coast of the Cape in the water? Isn’t that a lot simpler than landing in Utah with a heavier, more complex system. The Apollo way was the best way. Many people on this forum seem to gravitate to quixotic engineering solutions for their own sake.

  • common sense

    @ Major Tom wrote @ May 25th, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    I share your frustration.

    I can see several reasons why this is happening, for example:

    1. The same ol’ club at the helm of Exploration will not change what they thought was the greatest program, Constellation. Since most of these people seem to be there anyway.

    2. They abdicated their power to that of Congress.

    3. All of the above.

    I suspect it is moot anyway since they will not build anything and just waste money.

    As to the tax-payers, you and I,… Oh well… It’s not enough of a big deal to suggest that the tax-payers will have a say. They are not interested and inasmuch as no decision IS a decision it goes the same for the uninterested tax-payer. Since they are not interested well NASA will do whatever makes them survive another year. One could argue that the tax payers are represented by Congress and Congress just approved of the direction by NASA. So…

  • common sense

    @ amightywind wrote @ May 25th, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    “The pusher abort system is the dumbest idea I have heard.”

    Yeah well, we’ve read a lot many more dumb things coming from you. So I guess it must say how great this idea really is.

    Oh well…

  • Vladislaw

    amightywind wrote:

    “But that would remove one of the most effective tools for the NASA traditionalist in refuting newspace.”

    Man rated refered to making a military ballistic missile rated for human use.

    So you believe the way to refute newspace is to require every commerical military missile manufacturer to first have their ballistic missiles “man rated” before NASA allows them to launch civilian astronauts?

  • Vladislaw

    amightywind wrote:

    The pusher abort system is the dumbest idea I have heard. Why on earth carry the weight penalty of fuel and engines to orbit and then all the way to the ground when you only really need them for the first 3 minutes of flight?

    Is carrying your Earth to LEO – LEO to Earth capsule all the way to the moon/asteroids/Mars a dumb idea also?

  • Major Tom

    “Why on earth carry the weight penalty of fuel and engines to orbit and then all the way to the ground when you only really need them for the first 3 minutes of flight?”

    1) Because an integral LAS eliminates the need to separate the LAS from the capsule and the risks that separations and failed separations entail.

    2) Because a typical launch sequence takes ten minutes and the ability to add significant dV to capsule in the event of an abort after the first three minutes is desirable.

    3) Because an integrated LAS can double as in-space thrusters for attitude control and maneuvering.

    4) Because an integrated LAS can double as retro-thrusters for non-water and/or precision landings on Earth.

    5) Because an integrated LAS can double as retro-thrusters for planetary landings.

    “Also, an aborting spacecraft is negatively stable so the thrust on the pusher system has to be vectorable too.”

    Have you been paying attention at all to what’s been happening at Armadillo, Blue Origin, and Masten?

    You do realize that JSC is now using Armadillo landers, right?

    “I laugh when pusher supporters talk about using it for landing. If you really had to to the job, small solid landing rockets would suffice.”

    Yes, that’s why you saw all those solid motors in the retro-thrusters for the LEM.

    [rolls eyes]

    “How ’bout landing 5 miles off of the coast of the Cape in the water? Isn’t that a lot simpler than landing in Utah with a heavier, more complex system.”

    Not if you have to rent the Navy to come fish you out.

    C’mon, think, just a little, before you post.

    “The pusher abort system is the dumbest idea I have heard… What a hack… Many people on this forum seem to gravitate to quixotic engineering solutions for their own sake.”

    You should take up those ad hominem insults with Mike Griffin. The concept was mostly his, after all:

    nasaspaceflight.com/2007/12/mlas-the-alternative-orion-launch-abort-system-gains-momentum/

    Oy vey…

  • Das Boese

    Major Tom wrote @ May 25th, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    “Why on earth carry the weight penalty of fuel and engines to orbit and then all the way to the ground when you only really need them for the first 3 minutes of flight?”

    1) Because an integral LAS eliminates the need to separate the LAS from the capsule and the risks that separations and failed separations entail.

    2) Because a typical launch sequence takes ten minutes and the ability to add significant dV to capsule in the event of an abort after the first three minutes is desirable.

    3) Because an integrated LAS can double as in-space thrusters for attitude control and maneuvering.

    4) Because an integrated LAS can double as retro-thrusters for non-water and/or precision landings on Earth.

    5) Because an integrated LAS can double as retro-thrusters for planetary landings.

    6) Because it represents a cost advantage for reusable spacecraft.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ May 25th, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    But that would remove one of the most effective tools for the NASA traditionalist in refuting newspace.

    Not really. NASA doesn’t even have a complete definition of what “human rated” means. It’s a real concept, but it doesn’t exist in the real world. They didn’t even have a definitive definition for the Shuttle program, since they kept changing their assumptions about what was safe. We all know how that has worked out so far.

    Even “old space” companies don’t know what it means, so right now it’s just a punching bag issue for whoever wants to use it (like you).

    They would prefer to bypass the burden of compliance. What aerospace manufacturer wouldn’t?

    What business wouldn’t want the freedom to address their market the way they want to?

    Businesses usually accept regulation where it creates a level playing field, and where it can reduce liability. Such is the case with “human rating” standards, since Boeing, Lockheed Martin, SpaceX, Blue Origin and others would like to build spacecraft, but NASA (or whoever) hasn’t published a complete set of specifications for everyone to use if they want government business.

    There is no level playing field, either for newspace or oldspace.

    I will go on using it where the term applies.

    You can’t even define it using official definitions! Of course that hasn’t stopped you from making stuff up in the past… ;-)

  • Facts Ma'am

    To put it lightly, that’s insane.

    When people used that term just a few years ago, they too were called insane just for calling it out like that. Constellation. It’s insane. You can’t kill it.

    It has no brain.

  • DCSCA

    Coastal Ron wrote @ May 25th, 2011 at 3:47 pm

    “Not really. NASA doesn’t even have a complete definition of what “human rated” means.”

    Hmmm.

    Definition of Terms for Reliability and … C.12 “A Review of Man Rating in Past and Current Manned Space Flight Programs,” … C.14 “A Perspective on the Human Rating Process of Spacecraft: Both Past and …
    nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov

  • Martijn Meijering

    “RP-1 also makes us dependent on foreign petroleum and on Russian engines”

    Have you ever heard the phrase drill baby drill? Or the term oil shale or tar sands? Coal gasification and gas to liquid?

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ May 25th, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    A “review” and a “perspective” are far from a complete definition of what NASA considers the current “human rating standards”.

    NASA has stated on many occasions that it doesn’t have a compete standard, and has stated they they owe one for potential commercial providers.

    When they will provide it, and what it calls out for beyond what industry has already been contemplating, is the big unknown.

    Try and keep up with the issues…

  • Egad

    > I don’t know if NASA/ESMD has been cowed by congressional interests, has given up and doesn’t care anymore, or is just being plain lazy,

    Yeah, I was wondering about that today. Clearly there are people in NASA smart enough to see what a farrago/grotesque the current situation is. So do they have a plan for getting something worthwhile out of it (I can’t imagine what that would be) or have they just thrown up their hands and decided that they’re in it for the paychecks?

    > but decisionmakers, the human space flight program, taxpayers, and NASA and contractor employees deserve much, much better.

    Would that were to happen.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ May 25th, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    The pusher abort system is the dumbest idea I have heard.

    You do realize that the Orion LAS is 6,176 kg (13,615 lb) of non-value added mass, mass that has to be launched but does not contribute to the function of the capsule?

    That wasted mass was 24% of the max. Ares I payload at lift-off, and 31% of the max. ATK Liberty rocket payload at lift-off.

    And you don’t see that as a waste? Selective, aren’t we?

Leave a Reply to Major Tom 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>