SLS Waiting For Primary Roles:

As outlined in previous articles on this site, NASA managers are continuing with their efforts to refine the Design Reference Mission (DRM) roadmap for the Agency’s new flagship launch vehicle.

While that process continues, clues to the roadmap’s foundations can be found in NASA documentation, such as the SLS Concept Of Operations (Con Ops) presentation (available on L2 – Link to Presentation), which provides a detailed overview of the large number of the DRMs under consideration.

*Click here for the list of SLS Con Ops Articles*

As to when the process will be complete, a lot will depend on information relating to budget support for NASA, specifically the SLS and Orion programs.

In turn, SLS managers need to present a roadmap and a schedule which is far removed from the “worst case” scenario, one which sees SLS involved in a widely-spaced opening salvo of missions, before increasing to a flight rate of just one mission per year in the 2020s – an unacceptably low flight rate in most people’s eyes.

NASA managers are fully aware of this, with the SLS team already looking as far ahead as FY14 in their recent manifest meeting, based mainly around the previously reported wish to halve the gap between SLS-1 in 2017 and SLS-2.

With the “worst case” manifest showing SLS-2 would launch in 2021 – otherwise known as the first crewed mission for SLS and Orion – it is understood that if this mission cannot be advanced to 2019, an alternative option would be to launch SLS on a cargo mission in that year.

It has not yet been determined what type of cargo would fly on the SLS – a Block I (70mt) HLV – in such a schedule scenario.

Other Roles For SLS:

SLS’ design was technically selected ahead of knowing what specific missions it would be conducting. While it has been argued the payloads should determine the design of the launch vehicle, its upmass capabilities and fairing size options at least provide some guidelines to its future passengers.

As noted in the SLS Con Ops presentation, flexibility is inherent with a vehicle that will debut as a 70mt deriviative, prior to growing to 100mt (Block IA) and later to a 130mt (Block II). The aim is to evolve the SLS to its full capability in time for potential missions to Mars.

“The SLS changes the paradigm of what can be launched, because its launch performance is far greater than that of any current vehicle. In addition, its dramatically larger launch fairing enables launching large, multi-element systems, greater science instrument mass fraction, larger electrical power supplies, and more mass for shielding and lower-complexity engineering solutions,” noted the SLS Con Ops presentation.

“This translates into an earlier return on science, a reduction in mission times, and greater flexibility for extended science missions.”

Notable additions to the DRM section of the presentation are roles for the SLS which are separate from those which involve NASA’s future exploration aspirations.

Secondary Payloads – SpaceX and SLS:

One of these additional roles relates to “Secondary Payloads” – in other words, spacecraft – usually much smaller than the primary passenger – that could potentially hitch a ride uphill with the SLS.

The subject of secondary payloads became an important subject for SpaceX recently, as the Californian company noted its agreement to launch 18 ORBCOMM Generation 2 (OG2) satellites would be carried out – as secondary payloads – during Falcon 9 launches.

Originally, the delivery of the second-generation satellites into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) was set to be carried out on the Falcon 1e launch vehicle.

SpaceX noted the switch to Falcon 9 was made to further maximize the cost-effectiveness of their COTS/CRS missions, by including these additional payloads as passengers on the Falcon 9′s second stage, allowing them to be deployed after the Dragon spacecraft separates from the launch vehicle.

When SpaceX were asked if there was still a future role for Falcon 1/1e following this switch, the company’s communications director Kirstin Brost Grantham told NASASpaceflight.com: “Current plans are for small payloads to be served by flights on the Falcon 9, utilizing excess capacity. This is a very cost effective solution for small satellite launch needs.”

With a number of the OG2 satellites set to fly with the next Falcon 9 – the combined COTS 2 and 3 Demo mission – NASA teams used their experienced Monte Carlo analysis methods to review the deployment of the satellites, so as to ensure they did not hold an impact risk to the International Space Station (ISS).

For SLS, the Con Ops presentation noted the potential use of an Encapsulated Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) ring to allow for additional passengers to ride with the monster rocket.

“The SLS will pursue opportunities to fly secondary payloads in conjunction with primary missions. These services can be provided by the Science Mission Directorate (SMD), allowing deployment of these payloads along the SLS trajectory. An ESPA ring may be flown to accommodate this class of payloads.”

For SLS/HLV Articles, click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/hlv/

SLS DoD Missions:

In a reminder of the Space Shuttle’s past, SLS managers are also eyeing up the possibility of launching military payloads on the HLV.

Currently, most DoD spacecraft are launch by EELVs (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle), such as the Atlas V or the Delta IV vehicles, under the control of the United Launch Alliance (ULA). However, for a period during the early years of the Shuttle’s lifetime, the orbiter’s role with classified DoD payloads was commonplace.

During the Shuttle era, the orbiters enjoyed both “dedicated” DoD missions – beginning with Columbia’s STS-4 flight – and “civilian” missions that carried, or deployed, DoD payloads. The last dedicated DoD mission was in 1992 with Discovery during STS-53, while the last “civilian” mission with a DoD payload was in 2000, during Endeavour’s STS-99′s mission.

SLS managers believe NASA’s previous experience with DoD missions opens up the potential to carry out SLS launches with military payloads.

“Other missions which may utilize the SLS capability are launches for other Government agencies, like the DoD and any Government agencies with classified missions,” the Con Ops presentation noted.

“DoD mission support will also be available on the SLS, which will be available to partner with DoD and international partners for them to use SLS launch capabilities and opportunities. Classified missions have previously been supported through the MCC (Mission Control Center) at JSC (Johnson Space Center).

“This capability, along with the large payload capacity of SLS, allows for a wide range of DoD payload development and flight that was not previously available within the United States.”

The presentation also claimed the SLS’ large payload capability may be attractive to some commercial partners, citing Bigelow Space Station modules as one example.

It is likely the SLS team will wait until they know the outcome of the exploration roadmap evaluations before pursuing the potential of launching additional payloads.

(Images: Via L2 content, driven by L2′s SLS specific L2 section, which includes, presentations, videos, graphics and internal updates on the SLS and HLV, available on no other site. Other images via NASA and SpaceX.)

(L2 is – as it has been for the past several years – providing full exclusive SLS coverage, available no where else on the internet. To join L2, click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)

Related posts:

1. Teal predict over 2,200 payloads to be launched over next 20 years The Teal Group – a defense and aerospace consulting firm...
2. SpaceX scrub launch attempt SpaceX have scrubbed their launch attempt today, which was set...
3. SpaceX postpones launch – heads to Court SpaceX has announced a further postponement of the launch of...

Exploration Gateway:

With a return to the Moon’s surface returning to the table mid-way through 2011, during NASA evaluations into the new exploration plan, the concept of building a Gateway Platform at the International Space Station (ISS) and hosting it at a Lagrange point has become a large item of interest – not least since the Global Exploration Workshop last November.

Using the Gateway approach – the meeting concluded – utilizes “Near term focus on guiding capabilities, technologies and leveraging ISS,” prior to expanding to “Long term focus (on) Discovery Driven – and Enhanced by – Emerging Technologies.”

While the opening two missions of the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion (Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle) are currently manifested for trips around the Moon, the bulk of the schedule for the 2020s remains undefined, bar indicators that the roadmap would include missions to Near Earth Asteroids (NEA) and eventually Mars.

A Gateway would provide numerous supporting elements to a wide-ranging roadmap, not least an initial target of the Moon’s surface, but also via the potential for international collaboration, as overviewed in documentation into a crewed return to the moon – part of an ambitious plan put forward under the Boeing banner.

Such a deep space platform would be located at Earth-Moon Lagrange (EML) point 1 or 2, after being built from pre-launched hardware, providing the host station for a Lunar Lander (potentially reusable) – which would also be launched by the SLS.

The Gateway would first be constructed at the ISS, mainly using the Node 4/DHS (Docking Hub System), an orbiter external airlock, an MPLM (Multi-Purpose Logistics Module) habitat module, and an international module.

Once constructed, a space tug – powered either by solar electric or chemical propulsion – would be utilized to raise the platform to the EML point.

Such a proposal claims to have the platform ready for the arrival of crewed missions via the SLS by 2022.

While questions remain on the schedule of SLS’ availability, a potential solution to some of the challenges of enabling a space platform in the first place have been forwarded by Aerojet, promoting their current Solar Electric Propulsion technology – the same technology which enjoyed a staring role in the rescue of the Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite (AEHF-1).

Despite a nominal launch atop of an Atlas V – incidentally aided by three of Aerojet’s strap on solid rocket boosters – in August, 2010, a failure of the satellite’s subsystem resulted in the AEHF-1′s hydrazine-fueled liquid apogee engine (LAE) failing to carry out the required burns to place it correctly into Geostationary Orbit.

Thanks to some clever work via the satellite’s United States Air Force controllers and AEHF-1 teams, the $2 billion bird was saved via the ingenious use of the two smaller engines – namely the hydrazine-fueled Reaction Engine Assemblies (REAs) and later by the xenon-fueled Hall Current Thrusters (HCTs) – despite their primary role being one of positional stability on orbit.

The HCT thrusters – small motors that use electricity and xenon gas as propellant – do not have a large thrust level, but sport some amazing stamina, allowing them to fire over and over again for thousands of times.

While these motors can look forward to providing positional stability for upcoming satellites, along with long-distance trips with deep space spacecraft – a role Aerojet’s electric propulsion has successfully carried out on a huge range of spacecraft (a large amount remain operational today – click image for larger graphic) - a potential marriage between SEP and the Exploration Gateway plan has been promoted by the Californian company.

“We believe that Aerojet’s current Solar Electric Propulsion technology, such as that used to rescue AEHF, is immediately applicable to a key role in Human Space,” noted Julie Van Kleeck, Aerojet Vice President, Space & Launch System in an interview with NASASpaceflight.com.

“For example, a 25-40 kW SEP vehicle using current technology can pre-position a human-tended habitat at L-2 to support initial Orion missions. This approach would provide an immediate deep space destination for astronauts, and L-2 is an excellent way-station to the rest of the solar system.”

Playing to one of SEP’s strengths, such a vehicle would be relatively low in mass – when compared to its liquid propellant counterparts – aiding the launch vehicle used to loft such a vehicle en-route to its in-space role, while reducing the need for numerous refueling stations to assist thirsty spacecraft – otherwise known as propellant depots.

“In addition to delivering habitat modules to L-2, this 25-40 kW SEP vehicle enables an affordable and sustainable logistics transportation system for an L2 human outpost,” added Ms Van Kleeck. “Additionally this same vehicle supports a wide range of other potential destinations such as L-1, a 70,000 km way-station and lunar orbit. 

“The dramatic reduction in in-space propellant requirements enabled by SEP results in a 2X reduction in launcher delivery requirements to complete a mission, which will reduce the need for architectures like propellant depots.”

In recommending SEP technology for a role in NASA’s opening salvo of exploration missions, Aerojet believe they can assist as a facilitator towards enabling and supplying a platform, which itself would provide a key element of a viable exploration plan.

“A near-term operational SEP mission using current technologies serves three critical functions for human spaceflight,” Ms Van Kleeck noted.

“First, it provides an affordable transportation approach for the first deep-space destination for Orion.  Second, it establishes mission operation techniques and capabilities necessary for deep-space exploration.  Third, it provides a low-risk platform on which to validate subsystem/component technologies for follow-on vehicles. 

“These three critical outcomes, which follow the building block approach used over the past 50 years in the human spaceflight program, are why Aerojet recommends this near-term use of current technology Solar Electric Propulsion.”

Aerojet also have ambitions with the key component of the current exploration plan, via the upcoming evaluations into the advanced boosters which will provide the long-term assist of SLS’ ride uphill during first stage.

An article on Aerojet and SLS, along with other items of interest, will be forthcoming.

(Images: Via Aerojet, NASA and L2 content, driven by L2′s fast exapanding SLS specific L2 section, which includes, presentations, videos, graphics and internal updates on the SLS and HLV, available on no other site.)

(L2 is – as it has been for the past several years – providing full exclusive SLS coverage, available no where else on the internet. To join L2, click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)

No related posts.

Design Reference Mission – Roadmap Work:

As the plan currently stands, 14 Design Reference Missions (DRM) have been created as part of the ongoing SLS Concept Of Operations (Con Ops) process and Exploration Roadmap evaluations, under what is known as “Cycle C” evaluations. (Update Area – L2 Link).

Opening with the politically-requested support for the International Space Station (ISS) – which would result in the overkill of using the Space Launch System (SLS) Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) being used to send what is now a Beyond Earth Orbit (BEO) Orion to the orbital outpost, in the event of a major failure of the commercial ISS support contracts – the plan quickly moves on to the Moon.

With SLS-1 and SLS-2 trips to Lunar Orbit effectively being the test flights for the uncrewed and crewed opening missions, refinements have been made to bring the Deep Space Hab (DSH) earlier into the roadmap, pointing once again at the ambitious “Gateway Platform” potentially becoming part of what is tagged as the CIS_LP1_1A/B/C DRMs.

Again showing its strength of late, the push to return humans to the lunar surface are listed as LUN_SOL_1A for Polar Access and LUN_CRG_1A for cargo to be sent to the surface of the Moon.

It is hoped that such missions could be enabled by the early 2020s, with an eye on setting up a lunar base, likely via international cooperation and commercial ambitions.

“Minimum” to “Full” capability missions to a Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) have five DRMs currently under evaluation, likely ahead of being traded down.

These missions would all require its own giant leap in planning – not least from the aspect of life support and contingency evaluations – as the flights would result in crews traveling the great ever distance from Earth in human history.

These DRMs will be expanded on in future articles during the evaluations to solidify the roadmap.

Design Reference Mission – Mars:

By far the greatest challenge, Mars is not being shown as part of the Cycle C evaluations, as much as they are listed under “Forward Work” – with the DRM tags of MAR_PHD_1A and MAR_SFC_1A.

However, these DRMs alone provide clues into the thinking of the Exploration Roadmap team, which appears to be following the Flexible Path approach – a presentation which remains the most recent and comprehensive outline into achieving a crewed mission to Mars, built out of the recommendations from the Augustine Committee into Human Space Flight.

“A human Mars Orbit/Phobos Mission represents an intermediate step between human exploration missions in near-Earth space and human missions to explore the surface of Mars,” opened the expansive section on the manned missions to Mars/Phobos in the 65 page NASA internal “Flexible Path” presentation (available to download in L2 – Link).

“Key features could include demonstration of in-space hardware elements designed for Mars missions while accomplishing scientific and exploration objectives both at Mars and on Phobos.”

The debut manned mission to the Mars region would likely use a “short stay” trajectory (“opposition class”). Total mission durations for the short-stay missions range from 550-650 days, with 30 to 40 days in the vicinity of Mars.

During this scenario, over 95 percent of the total mission time is spent in the deep-space interplanetary environment with the balance spent in the vicinity of Mars. Duration of the transit legs ranges from a minimum of 190 days and maximum in excess of 400 days.

Conjunction-class missions (about 20-40 percent longer in total but with over 12 times the stay) are also feasible for a Phobos mission.

A Phobos mission – used as a precursor to a crewed mission to Mars – may be the main initial focus by proxy, primarily from two standpoints; a learning curve for a future mission to Mars, and the Mars science that can be gained from Phobos.

Phobos also presents a number of Mars-like challenges to a manned mission, allowing NASA engineers and astronauts to learn how to approach a subsequent Mars mission.

“One of the significant advantages a Phobos mission would be to demonstrate many of the technical and operational approaches needed for Mars missions without yet having all the required systems, or committing the crew to a full-duration surface stay,” added the presentation. 

“A Phobos mission could drive and demonstrate solutions of these items.”

The Phobos element is reviewed in greater detail via the previous article covering this element of the Flexible Plan.

For additional Flexible Path articles – See also:
Part 1: Battle of the Heavy Lift Launchers – Monster 200mt vehicle noted
Part 2: Manned mission to construct huge GEO and deep space telescopes proposed
Part 3: NASA Flexible Path Evaluation of 2025 human mission to visit an asteriod

Multiple Launches and Challenges For Mars Surface Mission:

A fleet of SLS’ would be required for a single crewed mission to Mars mission, including other numerous vehicles, most of which are very much at the conceptual stage of design.

NASA Glenn teams are understood to be reworking a baseline video into a Mars mission (Nine minute CGI video available on L2 – Link), in order to provide a general baseline using SLS – a video which already shows the challenges of an actual crewed mission to Mars.

Currently, there is no agreed baseline approach for setting up a mission to Mars, with the Flexible Path noting the requirement of 10-15 HLV launches – via the use of chemical (LH2/LOX) rockets, while the video shows a launch campaign using seven HLVs, sporting nuclear propulsion stages.

“Due to the wide variability of the short stay class trajectories the number of propulsive stages varies with opportunity, as will the number of HLV launches. Assuming hydrogen-oxygen in-space propulsion, the number of HLV launches varies between 10 and 15,” noted the Flexible Path approach.

The Mars campaign video shows seven HLVs launching the major elements of three vehicles using NTR (Nuclear Thermal Rocket) propulsion, namely the MLV Cargo Vehicle – created from two HLV launches, the MLV Habitat Vehicle – created from two HLV launches, and the MTV Crew Transfer Vehicle – created from three HLV launches. All three vehicles are assembled in Low Earth Orbit.

Via the mission campaign outlined in the video, the first two HLV launches are focused on sending up the two major elements known as propulsive stages. These stages are placed into Low Earth Orbit (LEO), in order to wait for the rest of the vehicle elements to arrive for rendezvous.

HLV launches 3 and 4 are used to deliver the Habitat and Cargo Landers, large elements of hardware which are depicted as sitting on top of the HLV without the need for a fairing.

Each of these elements rendezvous and dock with their propulsion stages in LEO and depart enroute to Mars, each displaying one large solar array and two smaller arrays.

According to the video, these two vehicles both arrive at Mars, with the cargo lander separating from its propulsion stages ahead of a decent to the Martian surface aided by three large parachutes and six descent engines – as much as this is all via a notional design via NASA Glenn teams.

Numerous vehicles are hosted on the cargo lander, including Space Exploration Vehicles (SEV) which may debut during a Moon surface mission.

As seen in the video, a robotic cart can be seen leaving the cargo lander and setting up the deployment of the Fission Surface Power System (FSPS) and radiators, again working under the notion of a mission utilizing nuclear power.

As noted by NASA, power requirements for human-tended surface outposts and bases are expected to range from 25 to 100 kWe during the early build-up phases. As the base becomes fully operational with in-situ resource production and closed-loop life support, power requirements could approach 1 MW.

The most mass-efficient means of providing high power for surface missions is through the use of nuclear fission systems.

With the stage set on the Martian surface for the arrival of the crew, three HLVs are tasked with launching the major elements of the Mars Transport Vehicle (MTV), with the hardware deployed and rendezvous in LEO.

This vehicle includes a Deep Space Hab and the Orion the crew will eventually splashdown in upon their return to Earth.

The crew is then launched to the assembled vehicle on another Orion, which is undocked as the crew ingress the MTV.

Ahead of departing LEO, the MTV is seen deploying four large solar arrays for the transit to Mars.

This mission profile does concur with the Flexible Path approach, as much as it is obvious: “Once all of the in-space propulsive stages are assembled in LEO, the crew is launched via Orion and the crew departs for Mars.”

However, with no Ares I available – since its cancellation – and the HLV being mainly used to launch the large MTV/Cargo elements, a potential change may be to launch the Orions via a Delta IV-H, for example.

Arriving at the Red Planet aft first – to allow for deceleration – the MTV carries out a propulsive Mars Orbit Capture manuever.

The crew then enter the attached Orion, undock from the MTV and dock with the orbiting Habitat Lander waiting for them in Mars orbit.

The Orion then undocks unmanned and redocks with the MTV, as the Habitat Lander – now containing the crew – begins its descent to the Martian surface.

Using Hypersonic Aero-assisted Deceleration, the lander enters the Martian atmosphere, separates its aeroshell and carries out Supersonic Retro-Propulsive braking – again deploying three large parachutes prior to a powered landing.

Under this mission profile, the crew spend 500+ days exploring Mars (Surface Exploration Phase) via EVAs both on foot and via the use of SEVs – stationed at a Martian base consisting of the two landers, and other erected support structures, including – per the video – an inflatable habitat linked by an airlock and hooked up to one of the landers.

The other lander is staged at a distance from the base structures, which is where the astronauts will translate to during their final moments on the planet.

This lander hosts their means of leaving the Martian surface, as they launch via what is again a notional vehicle known as the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV).

Per the video, this vehicle uses three large engines to launch the crew off the surface and back into Mars orbit where they rendezvous and dock with the MTV.

Shortly after docking, the MAV – along with any contingency consumables – are jettisoned whilst still in Mars orbit.

The MTV again fires its three engines and the crew begin their trip back to Earth.

Upon arrival back in the vicinity of Earth, the crew leave the MTV’s DSH for a final time and ingress into the Orion, which undocks and re-enters Earth’s atmosphere for a splashdown in the Pacific Ocean under parachutes.

Again, the above mission is likely to occur after a mission to one of the Martian moons, with the Flexible Path citing a shorter duration stay for a Phobos mission that also includes a unique return element in the flight profile, specifically a fly-by of Venus.

“On arrival at Mars the crew propulsively captures into orbit and eventually maneuvers to Phobos rendezvous. After a 40 day stay in the vicinity of Mars, the crew departs for Earth return. The return leg is targeted for a Venus flyby to reduce the propulsive requirement,” added the Flexible Path approach.

“Since this leg likely passes inside the orbit of Venus, such a mission would include the closest approach to the Sun by a human crew. Small asteroid flyby opportunities may also exist on such trajectories. The crew can participate in science investigation of flyby objects from a unique perspective.

“The Orion used to launch and board the crew is also used to return them to Earth via direct entry. The Crew Transfer Vehicle (or MTV) is targeted to flyby Earth and is expended in deep space.”

Making the case for Phobos first, the Flexible Path again stresses the challenges with a Mars surface mission, and the need to learn how to safely carry out such an ambitious deep space missions before taking on the ultimate challenge of the Red Planet itself.

“Our choice to include a short-stay human visit to Phobos as a step toward humans-on-Mars is outside the framework of missions extensively analysed by recent agency Mars mission planning, which have focused on Mars surface missions themselves.

“Such a mission is suggested by the Augustine Committee as a possible element of a Flexible Path strategy, so it bears examination.

“Assessment of the value of such a mission compared to the risk of sending crew on a multi-year, deep-space mission is a function not only of the potential science return, inter-operation with parallel robotic Mars surface missions, and direct feed-forward to human Mars surface missions, but also of the unique technical challenges and risks it would impose, and also how “fast” the program intends to get to the surface of Mars.”

As such, it appears that the 2011-2012 effort to create an Exploration Roadmap via the use of SLS has initially sided with recommendations made at the Augustine Committee review, placing a Martin mission to one of its moons ahead of a Mars surface mission.

“A human Mars Orbit/Phobos Mission represents an intermediate step between human exploration missions in near Earth space and human missions to explore the surface of Mars. Key features could include demonstration of in-space hardware elements designed for Mars missions while accomplishing scientific and exploration objectives both at Mars and on Phobos.

“At the completion of this mission, design solutions for and demonstrations of in-space hardware elements designed for human Mars surface mission will have been accomplished, as will significant scientific and exploration objectives at Mars and Phobos. Significant such objectives include gathering and preliminary analysis of samples from both Mars and Phobos, including samples from candidate landing site for future human crews.

“This mission could build on prior deep space missions by human crews in Earth-Moon space and to NEOs. It would leave a legacy of better understanding of both Mars and Phobos, along with a foundation for human missions to the surface of Mars. Achieving that legacy through such a mission would require meeting some unique challenges not needed for subsequent Mars surface missions.”

However, given the sad fact NASA’s continued funding uncertainty provides its own challenge for missions which may be two decades away, any outline of a human mission to Mars remains tightly locked up in fancy powerpoints and videos.

It is also possible that by the time a crewed mission to Mars is ramped up, new propulsion concepts may be available to improve the approach.

Either way, a crewed mission to Mars requires political support via solid funding over several Presidencies, many of whom would no longer be in office by the time the mission was carried out. That may prove to be the biggest challenge of all.

Images: Via L2 content, NASA and John Frasanito & Associates inc.)

(To join L2, support NSF and access 4,500+ gbs of content – click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)

Related posts:

1. Second Guessing NASA VSE Five Alternative Visions for Space Exploration. As concerns grow in...
2. Hope lost for Fobos-Grunt – likely to re-entry early in New Year Despite a small period of time where it was hoped...
3. Altair project buying into Orion lessons for development process As Orion and Ares progress towards PDR (Preliminary Design Review)...

MPS to SLS:

The MPS relates to the powerhouse in the aft compartment of the vehicle, aiding the acceleration from lift-off of an orbiter to Main Engine Cutoff (MECO) – the phase of ascent referred to as “powered flight”. As such, the Integrated MPS consists of the three RS-25Ds, the External Tank (ET), a propellant management system used to transport fuel and oxidizer from the tank to the engines, and a multi-purpose helium system.

For the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) – currently named the SLS - a large section of the External Tank design will be translated into the core stage, becoming part of the in-line rocket. All of this heritage is being fed directly from the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) into the SLS program.

The SLS will utilize between three and five RS-25s, initially those which have flown with the Shuttle – known as RS-25Ds. Once the 15 engines – which are currently enroute to Stennis Space Center (SSC) – have been used, SLS will begin using RS-25Es – an expendable version of the super-reliable Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) system.

As revealed by this site, the all-powerful Program Requirements Control Board (PRCB) concurred with the SLS program’s wish of using the hardware from the orbiter’s MPS, which will provide several benefits, from a flight-proven standpoint, through to saving money for the test phase of the HLV’s development.

“There has been a request to removed the entire MPS (Main Propulsion System) from the orbiters for SLS (Space Launch System),” noted PRCB and KSC Processing notes at the time (L2 Link to MPS-SLS presentations).

“Potential Cost and Schedule mitigation option for SLS. MPS component development can pace the overall core stage schedule. Retaining and utilizing SSP MPS hardware can have large initial cost savings.

“Beyond the existing Transition & Retirement (T&R) plan: Acquire high value items from the Orbiters, LRU (Line Replacement Unit) spares, GSE, Tooling and Documentation. SLS is needing hardware to support a test program and first two flights. Core Stage Option Utilizing Shuttle MPS. RS25 Engines. MPS. TVC (Thrust Vector Control) and Avionics.”

The Orbiter MPS includes major hardware items such as the Propellant Management System (PMS). The MPS PMS consists of manifolds, distribution lines, and valves that transport propellants from the tanks to the three main engines for combustion, and gases from the engines to the tank for pressurization purposes.

In addition to its primary function of feeding propellants from the External Tank to the engines during powered flight, the PMS also controls the loading of propellants before launch, the post-MECO propellant dump and vacuum inerting.

The removal of this hardware inside the aft compartments of the orbiters involves disconnecting major hardware – such as the Propellant Feedline Manifolds, which consists of 17-inch and 12-inch piping – through the three spaces left vacant by the removed SSMEs and access doors on the side of the aft.

This work has now begun on Discovery, as confirmed by Orbiter Flow manager Stephanie Stilson during an interview with NASASpaceflight.com’s Philip Sloss, during Atlantis’ move from OPF-2 to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB).

“I don’t like seeing her in pieces, because that is not how I envisioned her to be,” opened Ms Stilson, as Atlantis was pushed out of OPF-2 with all her propulsive elements missing. “But it’s all part of the process.”

That process – known as Transition and Retirement (T&R) – is mainly focused on preparing the orbiters for their retirement homes. However, as confirmed by Ms Stilson, even Atlantis’ vacation in the VAB will include the opening work on removing parts of Atlantis’ MPS, a process which has since begun on Discovery.

“We have started (removing MPS hardware) from Discovery just recently, but that is one of the major tasks we’ll be doing inside the Vehicle Assembly Building with Atlantis, which is pulling those major components out of the aft.”

Items being removed include the feedlines – vacuum jacketed for H2, insulated for O2 – Fill and Drain (F&D) lines, recirculation lines (H2), and gaseous H2 and O2 lines – which are used to maintain pressure in the ET – via more well known items of hardware such as the Flow Control Valves (FCVs).

The FCVs were highlighted during an investigation into a small liberation from one of the valve’s poppet’s during STS-126.

Mitigation procedures – which included screening of flown valves post-flight at the fabricator Vacco – resulted in no further issues.

Click here for numerous NASASpaceflight.com articles on the FCV issue since STS-126.

These are all natural elements of hardware which would provide both the SLS core and the SLS engines with the role they had previously enjoyed with the orbiter, such as the FCV-related Ullage Pressure System (UPS) – which deals with the volume in the LH2 and LO2 tanks not occupied by liquid propellant.

The ullage pressure system consists of the sensors, lines, and valves that are used to collect gaseous propellants (gaseous hydrogen and gaseous oxygen) from the three main engines; the system supplies the gaseous propellants to the External Tank to maintain propellant tank pressure during engine operation, as well as maintaining tank structural integrity.

Propellants must be supplied to the SSME with adequate head pressure for proper engine operation.

Also being removed is the MPS helium system, which consists of storage tanks, distribution lines, regulators, and valves that supply helium to the main engines and the MPS PMS.

The helium supply tanks consist of three large (17.3-cubic-foot) and seven small (4.7-cubic-foot) helium tanks known as Composite Overwrap Pressure Vessels (COPV).

Each large tank is plumbed to two of the small tanks to form three clusters. Each cluster provides helium to one of the main engines. The remaining small tank is the pneumatic helium supply.

Part of the removal process was based on plans created in the event Atlantis and Endeavour had continued flying – as much as these plans were prior to the recent private investment-driven effort – with Discovery retiring to become a parts donor to her younger sisters.

Discovery was already certain of retirement after STS-133, given she was due for her lengthy Orbiter Modification Down Period (OMDP), something which wouldn’t of been viable without her looking forward to numerous follow-on missions.

A large amount of evaluation – along with a high level of protection – will be provided on all MPS hardware being removed, which had previously been specific to Atlantis and Endeavour, but now sees – as initially hoped – all three orbiters are officially donating to the SLS program.

The removed hardware, which will mainly be taken out of the orbiter via side access hatches on the aft of the vehicles, will be treated as flight hardware, and carefully handled and stored as a result.

“All SLS-hardware is to be maintained ‘flight like’. The term ‘flight like’ is defined as follows: Parts will be maintained visibly clean, appropriately handled/transported, and maintained in good working condition. Part cleanliness shall be maintained using best shop practices: Cleanliness will be maintained via work in an environmentally controlled atmosphere,” added PRCB documentation.

This relates both work in the OPF – requiring the maintaining of purges as appropriate, using double clean bags/tape/caps/plugs to secure open ports/lines, and undertaking a best effort to maintain an acceptable level of cleanliness using field expedient techniques if work is to be performed in an uncontrolled environment, such as the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB), where Atlantis will have the opening work performed on her.

All of the removed MPS hardware is being placed into storage at the Assembly & Refurbishment Facility (ARF) – which also includes the large GSE (Ground Support Equipment) used on the orbiter MPS – currently located in the NSLD (NASA Shuttle Logistics Depot) at KSC.

The ARF is under the control of the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), while some hardware will also take up residency at KSC’s Logistics Warehouse.

“Remove high value MPS, TVC and Avionics hardware from the aft compartment of orbiters prior to sending them to museums. Package, transport and store the hardware in the Assembly Refurbishment Facility. Floorspace is available to store hardware in an environmentally controlled area,” the PRCB overview continued.

While the opening SLS missions will launch with RS-25D which had previously flow with the orbiters, it has not yet been decided if SLS will launch with new – albeit very similar – MPS components.

Documentation shows interest in launching SLS-1 and SLS-2 – both set for missions to the Moon – with orbiter MPS hardware. However. sources note a lot of the hardware will be used by the test program, which will utilize hardware on the ground.

However, with all three orbiters donating, there remains the possibility that SLS will make its debut launch not only with RS-25Ds that had previously powered an orbiter safely uphill, but also with part of an orbiter’s guts, which served the vehicles so well during their careers.

Images: Via L2 content, driven by L2′s fast exapanding SLS specific L2 section, which includes, presentations, videos, graphics and internal updates on the SLS and HLV, available on no other site. Other images via Philip Sloss, NASASpaceflight.com and NASA.)

(L2 is – as it has been for the past several years – providing full, exclusive SLS coverage, available no where else on the internet. To join L2, click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)

No related posts.

EFT-1:

The mission was initially targeting for July, 2013 – before slipping to October, 2013 – per Lockheed Martin updates relating to the EFT-1 launch date (L2 Link). However, it was noted at that time that Orion/MPCV (Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle) teams outside of JSC were speaking of December, 2013 at earliest, with a likely slip into 2014.

When NASA officially announced the mission, an “early 2014″ date was listed, as much as no definitive reason was given to the new placement on the schedule, although it is likely to be related to spreading program costs over a longer period.

The latest launch date now appears to be Q2 (Second Quarter) or Spring, 2014 – as is expected to be manifested at the conclusion of the contract negotiations.

While it is understood the schedule is not being impacted by the Orion set to fly – an uncrewed vehicle which continues to be manufactured at the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) in New Orleans – the entire EFT-1 deal has a large amount of in-built complexity due to the numerous cross-partnership deals in place for this mission.

For the purchase of the required Delta IV-Heavy, Lockheed Martin have had to work a deal with NASA for purchasing one of the launch vehicles, a deal which is then updated to one between Lockheed Martin and the United Launch Alliance (ULA). Lockheed Martin and Boeing make up the ULA, the joint company is the body responsible for the Delta IV-H.

For the actual mission, a Joint Test and Mission Operations Team – consisting of NASA MOD (Mission Operations Directorate) and Lockheed Martin personnel – has already been approved, supporting the development phase of the mission, through the real-time test flight support operation and post test flight vehicle processing.

Lockheed Martin are the contractor for Orion under a multi-billion dollar NASA deal, which has also undergone a huge amount of stress via the Constellation Program (CxP), its cancellation, and then the subsequent reinstatement of Orion into the new exploration program, which is mainly tasked with building the Space Launch System (SLS).

SLS won’t be ready by at least 2017, meaning Orion – which was initially designed to ride atop of the much-different Ares I launch vehicle, a vehicle which caused numerous design changes to the spacecraft and visa versa – will have waited nine years to actually fly into space since its announcement as the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), on a mission which will be at least five years before its debuted crewed mission with SLS-2.

It has been argued that the main reason Orion has suffered from a troublesome childhood is due to political/funding issues, as was intimated during the Augustine Commission’s review into NASA’s Human Space Flight program, which deemed Constellation to be technically sound, but lacking in funding to achieve pre-scheduled milestones.

Although Orion has been re-tasked as a Beyond Earth Orbit (BEO) spacecraft, it is likely its commercial sister, SpaceX’s Dragon – which also has BEO ambitions – will have already travelled to the ISS several times by the time Orion launches on its debut.

This mission – involving two orbits to a high-apogee, with a high-energy re-entry through Earth’s atmosphere on what is a multi-hour test, testing critical re-entry flight performance data and demonstrating early integration capabilities – is required, as outlined in a released document setting out the “Justification for other than full and open competition” for awarding the contract for EFT-1 to Lockheed Martin Space Systems Corp.

“NASA has a one-time requirement for critical performance data from an integrated flight test of the Orion spacecraft as part of the Orion Design, Development, Test and Evaluation (DDT&E) phase,” noted the opening remarks. “The EFT-1 is an early test flight required by early 2014, of the Orion spacecraft that is currently being developed by Lockheed Martin.

“The EFT-1 flight test of the Orion spacecraft is required to facilitate earlier and more robust testing of critical Orion systems that contribute to 10 of the 16 highest risks to crew survivabilitu and exploration mission failure, including parachutes, back shell and heat shield Thermal Protection System, Forward Bay Cover separation contact and flight software.”

The document also points out that the EFT-1 schedule is directly associated with the milestone of Orion’s Critical Design Review (CDR), which is currently set for April, 2015.

Click here for recent Orion articles: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/orion/

“The CDR is a critical DDT&E milestone, where the contractor discloses its complete spacecraft system design in full detail, identifying areas where technical problems and design anomalies have been resolved,” the document states.

“Successful completion of the CDR will validate that the contractor’s spacecraft design maturity is at an acceptable level that justifies the decision to initiate fabrication/manufacturing, integration and verification of the flight hardware and software.”

With the support of EFT-1 for the CDR process, those testing elements which cannot be conducted on the ground or via simulations will provide NASA with “significant risk reduction” whilst “providing an opportunity to identify technical problems and design anomalies” – directly feeding into the EM1 (Exploration Mission-1) Orion which will launch on SLS’ debut mission in 2017.

The document went on to focus on the contract, noting both Boeing and SpaceX did respond to the original solicitation. However, they were only in a position to offer the launch vehicle capability, as opposed to the full “end-to-end EFT-1 effort” required by NASA.

Several Orions were – and continue to be – in various stages of testing and manufacture across the States in 2011 and through to 2012 – such as the vibration testing at Lockheed Martin’s Denver facilities and the water drop tests at NASA’s Langley Flight Research Center (LaRC), since completed – along with the EFT-1 work at MAF.

(Images: Via L2 content, NASA and ULA). L2′s new Orion and Future Spacecraft specific L2 section includes, presentations, videos, graphics and internal updates on Orion and other future spacecraft.

(L2 is – as it has been for the past several years – providing full exclusive future vehicle coverage, available no where else on the internet. To join L2, click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)

Related posts:

1. Orion PDR delay could stretch into 2010 The requirement to carry out an additional Design Analysis Cycle...
2. Orion weight saving refinements continue – focus on ISS access The Lockheed Martin Orion spacecraft has received a new set...
3. Saving spaceship Orion – Zero Base Vehicle task complete NASA Constellation and Lockheed Martin engineers have completed the first...

SSMEs Shipping Out:

The change of home from the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) to NASA’s Stennis Space Center (SSC) in south Mississippi is a natural transition for the 15 engines, not least because the SSMEs underwent testing at Stennis ahead of their flight roles with the orbiters.

However, it’s their future role of becoming part of the SLS test program which has breathed new life into the famous engines, some of which will actually gain the honor of going out in style, launching one last time with the SLS during the first few missions.

Their transition from KSC will take place one engine at a time, as they travel to Mississippi by truck. Once at SSC, the SSMEs will join SLS’ Upper Stage J-2X engine – which is being tested at the facility – allowing for all SLS engine assets to be in one location, leveraging the existing knowledge base, skills, infrastructure and personnel.

“The relocation of RS-25D engine assets represents a significant cost savings to the SLS Program by consolidating SLS engine assembly and test operations at a single facility,” said William Gerstenmaier, NASA’s associate administrator for Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate.

The relocation also frees up the Space Shuttle Main Engine Processing Facility at KSC, which became part of a commercial deal with Boeing – in collaboration with NASA and Space Florida – to being exclusively occupied  by the company, along with Orbiter Processing Facility 3 (OPF-3) and the Processing Control Center, as they ramp up operations for their CST-100 spacecraft.

“This enables the sharing of personnel, resources and practices across all engine projects, allows flexibility and responsiveness to the SLS program, and it is more affordable,” said Johnny Heflin, RS-25D core stage engine lead in the SLS Liquid Engines Office at Marshall.

“It also frees up the space, allowing Kennedy to move forward relative to commercial customers.”

SSME: End Of A Shuttle Era:

The RS-25s have an amazing flight record with the Space Shuttle – with only one engine suffering a problem during the entire 30 years of the program.

*To read about all three orbiters - from birth, processing, every single mission, through to retirement - click here for the links:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25837.0*

That single issue occurred during STS-51F with Challenger, when one of two high pressure fuel turbopump turbine discharge temperature sensors for SSME-1 failed, leaving only one sensor active on the engine. Two minutes 12 seconds later, at Mission Elapsed Time 5mins 43secs, the second sensor failed, triggering the immediate shutdown of SSME-1.

The shutdown of SSME-1 significantly lowered the thrust profile for Challenger and triggered the only in-flight abort in Shuttle Program history: an Abort To Orbit (ATO) which allowed Challenger and her seven-member crew to reach a lower-than-planned but safe and stable orbit.

Nonetheless, before Challenger could complete her prolonged ascent (nearly 9mins 45secs in duration due to the lost thrust from SSME-1), an identical high pressure turbopump temperature sensor failure occurred in SSME-2.

Booster Systems Engineer Jenny M. Howard in Mission Control Houston acted immediately, instructing the crew to inhibit any further automatic SSME shutdowns based on readings from the remaining sensors. This quick action prevented the loss of another engine and a possible abort scenario far more risky or far worse than the already in-progress ATO.

When Challenger finally reached orbit, several aspects of the mission were retooled to account for the lower-than-planned orbital altitude.

Click here to read recent articles on the SSMEs: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/ssme/

As per the In Flight Anomaly (IFA) reports for the final three missions, all nine of the SSMEs performed admirably, as they assisted the orbiters for the ride uphill into orbit.

For STS-133, all three of Discovery’s SSMEs last flew with Atlantis during STS-129, although in different positions – after they required removing and re-installing in different positions, in order to allow a changeout of ME-1′s Low Pressure Oxidizer Turbo Pump (LPOTP) early in the flow.

Discovery flew with Main Engine 1 (ME-1) – serial number 2044, ME-2 – 2048 and ME-3 – 2058. All their related hardware was the same as that which flew with Atlantis, bar a couple of elements, such as a new nozzle for ME-1.

The only notable issue with the SSMEs occurred pre-launch, relating to a power issue with the redundant Main Engine Controller (MEC) on SSME 3.

The SSME controllers provides complete and continuous monitoring and control of engine operation. In addition, it performs maintenance and start preparation checks, and collects data for historical and maintenance purposes.

STS-133 Specific – Including ET Stringer Issue – Articles: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/sts-133/

The controller is an electronic package that contains five major sections; power supply section, input electronics section, output electronics sections, computer interface section, and digital computer unit.

Pressure, temperature, pump speed, flowrate, and position sensors supply the input signals. Output signals operate spark igniters, solenoid valves, and hydraulic actuators. The controller is dual redundant, which gives it normal, fail-operate, and fail-safe operational mode capability. The problem was specific to the redundant controller on ME-3.

Actions taken during troubleshooting included the installation of a breakout box and the testing of three single phase circuit breakers for SSMEC 3B on Panel L4. Although this inspection was limited by access, engineers pro-actively replaced all 18 SSMEC circuit breakers at the recommendation of management.

The problem soon became clear when CB 109 was inspected, with a clear observation of non-conductive debris on the hardware, a key candidate for the original problem seen with SSME 3′s redundant MEC.

After the troubleshooting was signed off at the Flight Readiness Review (FRR), all three engines – and controllers – performed without issue during ascent.

“Engine operation was nominal. ME-1 2044, ME-2 2048, ME-3 2058 – No SSME IFA Identified,” noted the STS-133 SSME IFA presentation (L2 Link to Presentation). “SSME observations are encompassed by previous flight and/or test experience and identified as no impact.

For STS-134, Endeavour’s ride into orbit was aided by a noisy trio that were no stranger to the aft of the youngest orbiter in the fleet, after pushing her uphill during STS-130.

The engines were installed for one final trip with Endeavour in the following positions on the orbiter: ME-1 – 2059, ME-2 – 2061, while 2057 was ME-3.

Only one item of interest made it into the FRR documentation for the SSMEs ahead of STS-134′s mission, referencing the incident when an ELSA (Life Support) bottle fell from the entrance level near the 50-2 door and hit Main Engine 2 (ME-2) during Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) processing operations.

“STS-134 Endeavour ME 2 ELSA Bottle Damage Inspections: Issue: Possible handling damage to ME-2. Background: ELSA Bottle dropped from above ME-2 to heat shield adjacent to controller during VAB processing. Damage observed above and adjacent to engine,” noted the STS-134 SSME SSP FRR presentation (L2 Link to Presentation).

“Dent in Orbiter GN2 Line. Dent on edge of Heat Shield near ME-2 controller. Witness statements and damage indicate no engine impact. Assessment conducted around 4.5 Ft assuming possible engine contact.”

With this issue cleared, Endeavour launched on her final mission without incident and successfully completed her mission on June 1, 2011.

As what became a regular observation, the 14-15 IFA presentations per mission (all acquired by L2 –  link to presentation collection) reviewing the mission post flight included a very short SSME presentation, noting no anomalies (L2 Link to Presentation).

STS-134 Specific Articles: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/sts-134/

For STS-135, Atlantis’ engines were ME-1 – 2047, ME-2 – 2060 and ME-3 – 2045.

Again, the only incident of note came before the engines were fired up at launch, when IPR-49 (Interim Problem Report) noted a problem with the Main Fuel Valve (MFV) on SSME-3, spotted during a tanking test to check the integrity of the modified stringers on the stack’s External Tank (ET-138).

The MFV is a ball valve with a 2.5-inch tubular flow passage and is flange-mounted between the high pressure fuel duct and nozzle diffuser. The valve controls the flow of fuel from the HPFTP (High Pressure Fuel Turbopump) to the coolant circuits and preburners.

The issue – the observation of a leak – was also covered in depth via the STS-135 SSP Flight Readiness Review (FRR) presentation for the SSMEs (L2 Link to Presentation), which covered how the issue was spotted during the Tanking Test, as it breached the Launch Commit Criteria (LCC) limitations.

As a result, the issue would have scrubbed the launch day countdown, showing a bonus side-effect of finding the problem during the Tanking Test.

“Issue: STS-135, ME-3 (2045) Main Fuel Valve (MFV) skin temperatures indicated a MFV leak during the early stages of STS-135 tanking test. Temps violated minimum limit (LCC SSME-02). Tanking test continued with engines isolated from the fuel supply,” noted the FRR presentation.

The reference to the skin temperatures related to sensors mounted to the outside wall of the downstream duct of the MFV to detect leakage during chill. Low temperatures are indicative of a MFV leak. The LCC limits are based on the vast flight experience of the Shuttle Program.

The MFV was replaced out at the pad and put through a series of leak checks. While those passed, the real test came during launch day, when the system was put through the cryogenic environment of tanking. Again, the skilled KSC and SSME engineers were shown to have successfully fixed the problem, as Atlantis launched for the final time without issue.

STS-135 Specific Articles: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/sts-135/

Now these stalwart engines – which includes the spare flight set: ME-1 – 2052 ME-2 – 2051 and ME-3 – 2054 – plus three others, are departing KSC once again – this time by road.

SSME To SLS Core:

Their potential role with the SLS was noted during the final flights of the Shuttle, as the 2010 Authorization Act reversed the FY2011 budget proposal which would not have seen any involvement of the RS-25s.

With a Shuttle Derived (SD) version of the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) consistently winning during trade studies, which once again pointed at a configuration which used RS-25s as the preference, the Program Requirements Control Board (PRCB) took action to protect the engines.

While NASA’s “White House-aligned” leadership continued to avoid pressing forward with the confirmation of the SD HLV SLS configuration, the PRCB stepped in to “preserve the SSME flight engines for future Agency use” (L2 Link to Presentation)- adding to a previous action to slow down the Transition and Retirement (T&R) of the contractor ability to manufacture flight spares for the RS-25s.

The PRCB also provided the approval for the orbiters to gain Replica Shuttle Main Engines (RSMEs) – previously scrapped nozzles installed via an adaptor – for when the vehicles retire to exhibitions, freeing up the flight flown SSMEs.

For SLS/HLV Articles, click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/hlv/

With the orbiters also donating large elements of their Main Propulsion System (MPS) – a heavily related collection of plumbing and lines – to the SLS program, a large amount of the HLV’s core guts will be from the orbiters for at least the testing/pathfinder stage, through to the opening launches.

The ongoing trades taking place at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) are also working through the core’s configuration for the three versions of the SLS, namely the Block I – 70mt, the Block IA – 100mt, and the Block II – 130mt vehicles.

Technically, SLS could launch with three, four or five RS-25s from the outset. However, with three engines on the core, and the automatic need for the core to be “stretched” – based on the five segment boosters on the configuration – using four engines would allow the vehicle to fly fully fueled in all configurations, saving the extra calculations/testing for an under-filled three engine core.

Per the meetings – as much as no decision has been made at this time ahead of the key Systems Requirements Review (SRR) and Systems Design Review (SDR) – it appears four engines on the first stage would be best prescribed for the SLS from the start, per sources.

SLS will naturally evolve after the opening flights of the Block I SLS, with SSME contractor Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) producing RS-25E engines for the rest of the SLS’ lifetime. The RS-25E – based on the reusable SSME (RS-25D) – is expendable and thus requires less long-life hardware items, in turn making it cheaper to produce.
—–
Please note: Clickable links with (L2) references point directly to cited L2 content. Such content is only available to L2 members (please ensure you are logged in). All other clickable links point to NSF articles and open content.

Images: Via L2 content, driven by L2′s fast exapanding SLS specific L2 section, which includes, presentations, videos, graphics and internal updates on the SLS and HLV, available on no other site. Other images via NASA.)

(L2 is – as it has been for the past several years – providing full, exclusive SLS coverage, available no where else on the internet. To join L2, click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)

No related posts.

NIAC:

The original NIAC ran from 1998-2007, “inspiring and nurturing revolutionary concepts that could transform future aerospace endeavors.” Returning in 2011, NIAC’s goal was to fund “early studies of visionary, long term concepts – aerospace architectures, systems, or missions (not focused technologies).”

This second call for proposals follows inaugural selection of Phase I concepts, which are now under study.

The 2011 effort resulted in funding for 30 distinct project advanced technology proposals which will better help the agency explore space. Each approach – which ranged from changing the course of orbital debris, a self stabilizing spacesuit using flywheels, the exciting technology of 3-D printing and numerous propulsion and power concepts for future missions – each received $100,000 for one year of studies.

Now, just days into 2012, NIAC are seeking proposals for revolutionary concepts with the potential to transform future aerospace missions. The proposed concepts should enable new capabilities or significantly alter current approaches to launching, building and operating space systems.

In announcing the new effort, NIAC noted that projects are chosen for their innovative and visionary characteristics, technical substance, and early development stage – ten years or more from use on a mission. NIAC’s current portfolio of diverse and innovative ideas represents multiple technology areas, including power, propulsion, structures and avionics.

“NIAC is a forward-looking program that captures what’s great about America’s space program,” said Michael Gazarik, director of NASA’s Space Technology Program. “NASA is looking for futuristic concepts that may enable leaps forward in how we work in and explore the space frontier.

“Equally important, we’re asking for ideas from all sources: American citizen-inventors or educators working out of their garage to the visionary small business owners fueling our nation’s economy.”

Based on the large number of submissions received from 2011′s NIAC call for proposals, 2012′s Phase I solicitation will incorporate a two-step process – of which NASA expects to award funding for approximately 15 proposals.

“NIAC will accept short proposals, limited to two pages in length, until February 9. After review, NASA will invite those whose concepts are of interest to the agency to submit a full proposal of no more than ten pages. Full proposals will be due April 16,” the NASA release noted.

Those selected will receive up to $100,000 for one year to advance the innovative space technology concept and help NASA meet current operational and future mission requirements. Selection announcements are expected this summer.

The number of Phase I awards also will be balanced with NASA’s selection of Phase II awards. Phase II awards will be selected from Phase I concepts submitted last year that the agency decides to advance.

“NASA’s early investment and partnership with creative scientists, engineers and citizen inventors will pay huge technological dividends and help maintain America’s leadership in the global technology economy,” added the NASA release.

The solicitation is open to all United States citizens and researchers working in the United States, including NASA civil servants.

Out-Of-The-Box Advances:

While NIAC cover a large range of technologies, the need to move past the current chemical propulsion methods has been a long-standing wish for advancing the capability and execution of Beyond Earth Orbit (BEO) exploration.

NASA administrator Charlie Bolden hinted at this wish via his announcement of the FY2011 budget proposal, in which he called for a study into a five year “game changing” propulsion study, as part of the changes proposed to the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) program, in tandem with the cancellation of the Constellation Program (CxP).

That proposal was changed via the 2010 Authorization Act, which called for the HLV to utilize hardware from the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) and Constellation Program (CxP), as opposed to effectively mothballing what is now the Space Launch System (SLS) for at least five years.

NIAC appear to be looking towards the future from an “anyone got a better idea?” standpoint, calling for innovative propulsion and power concepts needed for future space mission operations. Such “out-of-the-box” thinking can be seen via the 2011 proposal presentations, which provide insight into the potential applications of future space exploration. (Link to presentations).

Led by “The Potential for Ambient Plasma Wave Propulsion”, the 2011 resources provide introductions to some of the revolutionary ideas which could provide breakthroughs into advancing the exploration of deep space.

“Truly robust and affordable space exploration will require that we use all the available resources we can find in space,” noted James Gilland of the Ohio Aerospace Institute.

“Many planets, and the Sun, possess an ambient environment of magnetic fields and plasmas. Plasmas with magnetic fields can support a variety of waves, which transmit energy and or pressure, like light or sound waves. Many of these waves are at radio frequencies (kHz to MHz), and can be generated using the appropriate antenna.

“This concept simply uses an on‐board power supply and antenna on a vehicle that operates in the existing plasma. The spacecraft’s beams plasma waves in one direction with the antenna, to generate momentum that could propel the vehicle in the other direction, without using any propellant on the space ship. Such a system could maneuver in the plasma environment for as long as its power supply lasts, without refueling.

“One particular wave to consider is the Alfven wave, which propagates in magnetized plasmas and has been observed occurring naturally in space.”

Also listed in the Group 1 category is the “Atmospheric Breathing Electric Thruster for Planetary Exploration,” as outlined by Kurt Hohman of Busek Co. Inc.

“This study will investigate the development of an atmosphere‐breathing electric propulsion solar-powered vehicle to explore planets such as Mars. The vehicle would use atmospheric gas for propellant, eliminating the need to launch and carry the propellant from earth. The propulsion thruster would be electric where the gas is ionized in a plasma and accelerated by electromagnetic fields.

“The combination of high efficiency and high specific impulse of the electric propulsion thruster and free propellant in‐situ will result in an exciting and enabling technology. This could enable NASA to perform missions of extended lifetime and capabilities beyond those available by typical chemical rockets. Phase I will formulate feasibility of the concept through modeling, calculations and preliminary laboratory experiments and push validity into Phase II research.”

Steven Howe, from the Universities Space Research Association, looks back to the heritage of the Apollo missions and deep space exploration probes for his “Economical Radioisotope Power” proposal, based around the concept of Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) to provide electrical power.

“Almost all robotic space exploration missions, and all Apollo missions to the moon, have used RTGs for electrical power. These RTGs rely on the conversion of the heat produced by the radioactive decay of Pu‐238 to electricity. Unfortunately, the supply of Pu‐238 is about to run out,” Mr Howe wrote.

“This study will investigate an economical production method for Pu‐238 that could allow NASA or a private venture to produce several kilograms per year without the need for large government investment.”

This team is evaluating the production rate in a commercial nuclear reactor, an investigate the optimization of the transit time of the target material in the reactor, for the purpose of experimentally validating this production process and assess its efficiency, and estimate costs for production facilities and handling the waste stream form the process.

Other interesting ideas proposed in Group 1 of the 2011 NIAC effort include “Metallic Hydrogen: A Game Changing Rocket Propellant” – a concept which “would revolutionize rocketry”, as introduced by Isaac Silvera of Harvard University.

“Atomic metallic hydrogen, if metastable at ambient pressure and temperature could be used as the most powerful chemical rocket fuel, as the atoms recombine to form molecular hydrogen. This light‐weight high‐energy density material would revolutionize rocketry, allowing single‐stage rockets to enter orbit and chemically fueled rockets to explore our solar system.

“To transform solid molecular hydrogen to metallic hydrogen requires extreme high pressures, but has not yet been accomplished in the laboratory. The proposed new approach injects electrons into solid hydrogen to lower the critical pressure for transformation. If successful the metastability properties of hydrogen will be studied. This approach may scale down the pressures needed to produce this potentially revolutionary rocket propellant.”

Often mentioned as a serious contender for future crewed deep space exploration missions, nuclear-related proposals are nothing new. However, per John Slough of MSNW LLC, his “Nuclear Propulsion Through Direct Conversion of Fusion Energy” concept is part of the Group 1 proposals.

“The future of manned space exploration and development of space depends critically on the creation of a vastly more efficient propulsion architecture for in‐space transportation. Nuclear-powered rockets can provide the large energy density gain required,” Mr Slough wrote.

“A small scale, low cost path to fusion‐based propulsion is to be investigated. It is accomplished by employing the propellant to compress and heat a magnetized plasma to fusion conditions, and thereby channel the fusion energy released into heating only the propellant.

“Passage of the hot propellant through a magnetic nozzle rapidly converts this thermal energy into both directed (propulsive) energy and electrical energy.”

Alfonso Tarditi of the University of Houston at Clear Lake also lists a fusion based concept via his “Aneutronic Fusion Spacecraft Architecture”, which he claims could drastically change the potential for human and robotic space exploration.

“The proposed design is based on neutron‐free nuclear fusion as the primary energy source. An innovative beam conditioning/ nozzle concept enables useful propulsive thrust directly from the fusion products, while some fraction of the energy is extracted via direct conversion into electricity for use in the reactor and spacecraft’s systems.

“This study focuses on providing the framework required to make fusion propulsion an appealing proposition for long‐range space travel (by integrating the power generation and propulsion systems) rather than on the development of a specific fusion reactor concept.

“However, the scope of this study is not constrained by the immediate availability of fusion energy since it also analyzes “hybrid” schemes with a solar or fission primary energy source along with a sub‐critical fusion reactor used as a plasma space propulsion system.”

On the nuclear fission side of the NIAC supported concepts, Robert Werka – of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) – proposes “a Concept Assessment of a Fission Fragment Rocket Engine (FFRE) Propelled Spacecraft, which has a safety bonus of enabling the reactor to be charged after arrival in LEO.

“A new technology, the Fission Fragment Rocket Engine (FFRE), requires small amounts of readily available, energy dense, long lasting fuel, significant thrust at specific impulse of a million seconds, and increases safety by charging the reactor after arrival in LEO. If this study shows the FFRE potential, the return could be immense through savings in travel time, payload fraction, launch vehicle support and safety for deep space exploration.

“Nuclear fission emits charged fission fragments that travel at more than 4 percent of light speed. These normally quickly collide with other atoms in the core. But an FFRE with a magnetically contained dusty plasma core could employ electrical collimation of the charged fragments into an exhaust beam.”

Solar Sails are also a well-publicized concept, though not usually in the realm of interplanetary exploration. Grover Swartzlander of the Rochester Institute of Technology has proposed a concept which utilizes “optical lift” to enhance space missions employing solar sails.

“Although light is massless, it carries momentum. That momentum can be imparted to refracting, reflecting, and absorbing objects in the form of “radiation pressure”. Over time, the small but constant supply of radiation pressure may outweigh the large but brief force afforded by conventional propellants,” wrote Mr Swartzlander.

“The study team found that transparent refractive objects may settle into a position where they feel a force that is perpendicular to the incoming light direction, akin to the lift experienced by an airplane wing. This study will explore the potential for “optical lift” to enhance space missions employing solar sails.

“Space‐related applications of a fully maneuverable solar craft are numerous. In the distant future, one can imagine interplanetary missions and visits to exoplanets benefiting from the advantages of the optical lift force.”

Next up for NIAC is the 2012 Spring Symposium, which is being planned for March 27-29, 2012, at the Westin Hotel in Pasadena, California. Current NIAC Fellows – as listed above – will attend and give presentations about their Phase I research. The conference will feature exciting keynote speakers and information about NIAC’s program status and plans.

This will be followed by the first NIAC Phase II NASA Research Announcement, which will be released in early April, 2012.

(Images via NASA, NIAC and L2).

No related posts.

SLS in 2012:

A solidified version of the roadmap for the Space Launch System (SLS) is expected this year, as much as there had been hoped the details would be forthcoming in the last few months. One of the main challenges is believed to be the long-term funding situation for NASA, which is – as always – under pressure.

Such funding constraints on the Agency may even impact on the very configuration of the SLS, although seasoned NASA teams are understood to be providing a level of mitigation by working flexible options on the launch infrastructure.

However, it was the ever changing refinements to the Constellation Program (CxP) vehicles – again via funding challenges – which eventually led to schedule milestone slips, the threat of extra costs as a result, all culminating in its cancellation after the findings of the Augustine Commission into Human Space Flight noted that while the vehicle hardware design was sound, billions of extra dollars were required to bring the program back into a viable schedule.

The lack of a definitive roadmap – regardless of the reasons – is a problem, one which allows for the charge the vehicle should have been designed for the payloads, not the other way around. Such an issue is mitigated to a point by the size of the vehicle, with SLS’ massive capability – even prior to the evolved 130mt capacity – allowing for confidence in being able to achieve a large range of missions.

With a solid plan to start with a 70mt capable Block 1 SLS, the Orion (MPCV – Multi-Purpose Crew vehicle) no longer has the mass constraints it complained about during its development to launch with the Ares I launch vehicle.

By the early 2020s, SLS will be upgraded into the Block 1A configuration, a 100mt vehicle which will utilize either solid or liquid boosters, prior to the eventual Block 2, 130mt vehicle, boosted by its triple J-2X Upper Stage.

All three versions of the SLS will have a crew and/or cargo launch option, with the debut uncrewed launch around the Moon, set for 2017, to be followed by the first manned flight, which managers are continuing to push for a 2019 launch date – a two year improvement on the “worst case” manifest.

This baseline knowledge had provided an initial “bible” of operations for the SLS – known as the info-heavy Concept Of Operations (Con Ops) presentation (available in L2), with its content being serialized by this site.

*Click here for SLS Con Ops Article List*

SLS Mission Ability – PART TWO: (Click here for Part 1)

Transporting humans further than the Moon has been an ambition of mankind for decades, but something yet to be achieved, not least due to the massive challenge of sustaining a crew on a deep space voyage for many months.

Important lessons are being provided by the crews of the International Space Station (ISS), with average tours of six months showing humans can live and work safely “off planet” in micro G conditions.

However, the ISS is an expertly controlled laboratory, racing around in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), with immediate means of evacuating crewmembers back to the planet if required. Sending humans into deep space, on a relatively small vehicle, will require advances in life support and additional mitigation against critical – mission ending – failures, to name but a few of the challenges.

Preliminary work continues to mature on the ground, while teams plan out the potential missions NASA crews will undertake in what will be the next big drive for the Agency, the return to exploration.

With a return to the Moon – at least its orbit, but potentially back to the surface – part of the opening salvo of mission goals for SLS and Orion, the ultimate aim is to send humans to Mars. Such a mission is highly unlikely to take place ahead of the 2030s, meaning NASA may even be beaten by one of the commercial companies – such as SpaceX.

However, providing the tools of being able to successfully send crews as far as Mars will come via interim experience, gained from the initial SLS/Orion missions to the Moon and potentially a Near Earth Object (NEO), more commonly and specifically known as a Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) mission.

A large amount of training for such a mission has already taken place on Earth, not least via the NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) missions, which recently completed a six-EVA underwater simulation mimicking exploration of an asteroid – at least from the standpoint of being at the destination, as opposed to the challenge of the transit to and from the NEO.

Cited as the Deep Space (Strategic and Architecture Timeframes) in the expansive Con Ops presentation, missions to NEOs may not require the full Block 2 capability of the SLS – if NASA managers opted to use the initial mission capability. The larger SLS would be required for an advanced mission profile.

“The deep space missions are the longest duration missions in the DRM set. These include initial, advanced, and full capability missions to NEA (DRM IDs: NEA_MIN _1A1A/2A_C11B1 and NEA_FUL_1A_C11B1,” noted the Con Ops presentation.

“The initial capability NEA mission, which is a Strategic timeframe DRM, will require two SLS launches with mass to orbit of approximately 85t and 90t.

“The advanced capability NEA mission, which is an Architecture timeframe DRM, will require three SLS launches with mass to orbit of approximately 90t, 111t, and 111t.

“The full capability NEA mission, which is also an Architecture timeframe DRM, requires three SLS launches with lift-off masses of approximately 105t. Each of these missions will require launches spaced 180 days apart.”

Destination options are not listed in the Con Ops, with the older Flexible Path presentation (available in L2) still the most comprehensive overview for the NEA and Mars mission options.

The most likely candidates cited in the Flexible Path approach include a mission to Near Earth Object 1999AO10, requiring a launch date of January 2, 2026. NASA managers continue to note that a NEO mission would likely occur in the middle of the next decade, making this target a viable example.

This deep space mission would last 155 days, around half of the mission length for the other candidate mentioned – 304 days – for NEO 2001 GP2.

With a robotic precursor mission launched four years in advance, the 1999AO10 mission is portrayed as requiring two Space Launch System vehicles being readied to launch.

The first HLV launch – per the Flexible Path approach – would place the Earth Departure Stage (EDS) and an “inflatable design Habitat” – otherwise known as the Deep Space Hab (DSH) into orbit first.

The higher propellant load Orion/SM (Service Module) – and likely the MMSEV (Multi Mission Space Exploration Vehicle) – would then placed in LEO on the second launch. This is a different sequence to that proposed in other presentations, showing how such mission sequences remain undefined at this time.

Further information became available via the Human Space Exploration Community’s Workshop, under the tagline “Mission Scenario: Asteroid Next”, which points to a potential requirement for crewed missions to an Exploration Test Module in the initial years of the 2020 decade.

As referenced by the “Asteroid Next” presentation, these mission would be “In-space habitation for long durations in the appropriate radiation environment” to gain further knowledge and information on “radiation protection and measurement techniques; demonstration of beyond Low Earth Orbit re-entry speeds; subsystem high reliability and commonality (and) repair at the lowest level (while) living without a supply chain” – something which is extremely important for eventual multi-month/year missions away from Earth.

Under such a scenario, the Exploration Test Module would quickly be replaced by the Deep Space Habitat (DSH) to be launched by the SLS and delivered to the Earth-Moon 1 Lagrange point – which gives the added benefit of practising operations in a gravitationally null point in the Earth-Moon system.

For the DSH, a total of six crewed mission would be planned. While the missions would be tailored in terms of duration to fit specific mission requirements, opening assessments point to an initial 2023 flight to the DSH lasting 14 days with 4 crew members.

This would be followed by an un-crewed resupply mission to DSH by the SLS rocket in preparation for a second crewed mission the following year. This second crewed mission would also fly with 4 people and last for 30 days. The third mission would be flown a year after the second and consist of a 60-day mission with four crewmembers.

The next year would see a four-person crew staying for 90 days at the DSH before a 180-day mission the following year. By which time, a mission to an actual NEA would effectively be practised and proven from a crew survival standpoint.

This also shows why Mars is so far away from being fully planned, as these precursor missions to the big prize learn mankind how to safely carry out crewed deep space missions, especially in such a risk advise era when compared to the Apollo era.

As outlined previously numerous times, the current favored approach is to aim for the moon of Phobos as a stepping stone to actually landing on Mars. This mission, while expansively covered in the Flexible Path approach, remains highly notional, given the lack of experience with the initial deep space missions.

However, the Con Ops presentation then provides a surprise, by refocusing on SLS’ unmanned capability, in turn removing the caveat of having to learn how to keep a crew alive during long duration flight.

Missions to Europa and Enceladus:

NASA’s experience with deep space probes is well known and largely successful, but the Con Ops presentation points to a large advantage that can be gained by their monster rocket – providing “direct” missions to destinations in our solar system, removing the longer transit times that require gravity assists, in turn increasing the mission goals for the passenger payload/spacecraft.

“The SLS is a feasible option to launch demanding missions to explore the solar system. The SLS capabilities provide three main advantages to Science Payloads: higher energy, larger diameters, and larger mass,” added the presentation.

For SLS/HLV Articles, click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/hlv/

“The SLS can fly large or medium class payloads to higher energy orbits. This potentially enables direct missions to the outer planets that are currently only achievable using indirect flights with gravity-assist trajectories. An SLS could enable these missions using direct flights with shorter interplanetary transfer times, which enables extensive in situ investigations and potentially sample return options.”

The claim is a fair one when comparing SLS to the currently favored Delta II and Atlas V launch vehicles for such missions involving deep space spacecraft, as SLS’ superior launch mass capability and larger fairing offer exciting possibilities for more ambitious hardware which may be too large for the medium launchers.

“The SLS also provides 8.4 m and 10.0 m fairings to launch payloads with larger diameter apertures. This capability allows Earth observing, astronomical missions (e.g., planet finders), etc., with the ability to launch large single mirrors and lenses without the expense, complexity, and mass of segmented optics,” noted the Con Ops presentation.
 
“The SLS provides a heavy-lift capacity, allowing complex spacecraft to be launched with much higher masses. The large payload capacity of the SLS permits the addition of extra fuel for propulsive maneuvers, shielding to protect from harsh radiation, drill strings and casings for drilling, and redundancy. Sample return missions benefit from all aspects of the SLS performance.”

As if to drive the point home, the presentation provides examples of such mission capabilities, pointing towards missions to the exciting moons of Jupiter and Saturn, namely Europa and Enceladus.

Europa, is the sixth closest moon of the planet Jupiter, and the smallest of its four Galilean satellites. A water ocean exists beneath its surface, which could conceivably serve as an abode for extraterrestrial life.

Sister crafts Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 were the first to visit Jupiter, in 1973 and 1974, respectively. The two Voyager probes travelled through the Jovian system in 1979 providing more detailed images of Europa’s icy surface.

Starting in 1995, Galileo began a Jupiter orbiting mission that lasted for eight years, until 2003. New Horizons imaged Europa in 2007, as it flew by the Jovian system while on its way to Pluto.

The Jupiter Europa Orbiter, as part of the Europa Jupiter System Mission (EJSM) – a joint NASA/ESA proposal – is a potential future exploration of Jupiter’s moons targeting a launch in 2020, while Juno – launched by an Atlas V - is enroute.

“The SLS could potentially enable sample return from Jupiter’s moon Europa, because it would have the payload capacity to provide shielding for a lander on the surface, and sufficient fuel for propulsive maneuvers out of the gravitational well of Jupiter,” noted the Con Ops presentation.

“At Enceladus, a small active moon of Saturn, the SLS could carry the fuel needed to slow down for sample capture from the plumes on Enceladus, or create an artificial plume on either Europa or Enceladus by firing a copper projectile at the surface.”

Enceladus is the sixth-largest of the moons of Saturn and  one of only three outer solar system bodies (along with Jupiter’s moon Io and Neptune’s moon Triton) where active eruptions have been observed.

It has been reported that analysis of the outgassing suggests that it originates from a body of sub-surface liquid water, which along with the unique chemistry found in the plume, has fueled speculations that Enceladus may be the most habitable spot beyond Earth in the Solar System for life.

Most of the data and photography from visiting spacecraft has been acquired by the Voyager 2 and Cassini spacecrafts.

No firm plans to return to the moon have been confirmed, with the Titan Saturn System Mission (TSSM) – a joint NASA/ESA proposal for exploration of Saturn’s moons, including Enceladus – currently behind the Jupiter EJSM in the mission order.

Numerous articles on SLS/Orion and Exploration Roadmaps will be published over the coming weeks and months.
–
Please note: Clickable links with (L2) references point directly to cited L2 content. Such content is only available to L2 members (please ensure you are logged in). All other clickable links point to NSF articles and open content.

Images: Via L2 content, driven by L2′s fast exapanding SLS specific L2 section, which includes, presentations, videos, graphics and internal updates on the SLS and HLV, available on no other site. Other images via NASA.)

(L2 is – as it has been for the past several years – providing full exclusive SLS coverage, available no where else on the internet. To join L2, click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)

No related posts.

KSC Improvements:

The most iconic launch site in the world has fallen silent since the end of the Space Shuttle Program (SSP), but it at least hopes to transition into vitally important future role – one which will not only provide a home base for a number of commercial launch companies, but one which will eventually host crewed missions to Mars.

Although NASA is at the mercy of the ever-changing political climate, and a lot of NASA’s future ideas tend to remain as powerpoint presentations, actual work towards the future is already taking place at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), part of the 21st Century Space Launch Complex drive.

One of the largest projects involves the revitalization of the KSC Water and Wastewater Systems, which have been in place since the spaceport’s initial construction, back during the drive towards the Apollo moon missions.

This effort is now into phase 3 of a multi-phased effort which will – through various enhancements – improve water quality, reduce water consumption and required flushing, replace or repair ageing pipes that are susceptible to breaks or leaks, and increase overall water and wastewater system reliability.

Despite its less-than-glamorous name, the Water and Wastewater system are vital arteries to operations throughout the center for restrooms, food preparation, fire protection and sound suppression at the launch pads – and can be seen stretching the entire length of the Crawlerway, before forking to both Pad 39A and Pad 39B.

“Upcoming activities of particular interest to the KSC population include parallel replacement of the 16-inch and 12-inch asbestos cement water mains with new ductile iron pipe along NASA Parkway from Kennedy Parkway to the Roy D. Bridges Bridge (aka Banana River Bridge); and segregation of fire and potable water supplies from the Turn Basin out to Launch Complex 39 with 4-inch and 3-inch PVC mains, respectively,” noted a construction update via L2 (L2 Link to presentation).

“There are several ways in which this construction will affect our workplace, including temporary roadway, lane and shoulder closures, temporary water outages or reduced water pressure for certain facilities, closed sidewalks or parking lot entrances, increased construction traffic, and temporary restroom closures.”

The work – contracted to Speegle Construction II, Inc – is set to be completed in the Spring of 2013.

Currently, Pad 39B is preparing to host the Space Launch System (SLS), following its conversion from a Shuttle pad into what is known as a “Clean Pad”. Such a design is required to create the space for the use of the Mobile Launcher (ML) on site, which made its debut trip to the pad at the end of last year.

Pad 39A is currently mothballed as a Shuttle pad, as much as it will never host one of the iconic shuttle stacks ever again. It is likely that the pad will be leased to an unnamed commercial suitor, who may in turn convert the pad for their needs.

Some of the old infrastructure remains at 39B – such as the the giant water tower – remain in place at the converted pad, and will live on with the SLS program.

The Water Tower holds hundreds of thousands of gallons of water, which rushes down a plumbing system into the zero level deck of the Mobile Launch Platform, providing the required rush of water to supply the Sound Suppression System – which protects the launch vehicle from acoustical energy reflected from the platform during lift-off.

As noted in the construction update, the tower at 39B is also receiving a facelift, both internally and externally.

“A construction contract was recently awarded to RUSH Construction, Inc. to perform repair work on the Pad B Water Tower and Sound Suppression System. The scope of work includes repairs to the interior of the 300,000-gallon, 285-foot elevated water tank (constructed in the late1970s), repairs to the piping system, and sandblasting and recoating of the exterior of the tank, piping and associated supports.

“Scaffolding is being erected around the structure to provide access to perform the necessary refurbishment. Pad B remains a construction zone with access restricted to official business coordinated through the Pad B Operations Office. The area around the water tower is designated a construction site and access is coordinated through the construction management team.”

The Tower is expected to be revamped by July of this year.

Fire protection deficiencies in various high-value facilities at KSC are also being rectified and upgraded, which involves the installation of new wet pipe, dry pipe or pre-action fire suppression systems inside various KSC facilities; new underground water mains; and modifications to existing fire alarm systems to support the new fire suppression systems.

“Many KSC facilities were built prior to the development of NASA and KSC fire protection standards that require fire suppression systems in offices and areas containing critical systems or hardware,” added the update. “These projects are part of a phased, multi-year plan designed to provide a safer working environment for KSC employees and improve mission reliability for future programs.”

Numerous buildings at KSC are listed, from fire stations to the Operations and Checkout (O&C) building – with the latter currently undergoing a large renovation effort, which is now into Phase 5 of the work.

“This is the final phase of the O&C office area revitalization – to modernize the entire first floor – and is being executed in two stages, with the eastern half of the building currently in work,” noted the update on the building, most famous to the public as the facility from where the astronauts appeared in their flight suits ahead of boarding the Astrovan. Astronauts were housed inside the O&C building ahead of launch.

“The renovation includes new modular offices and furniture, modernized conference rooms and centralized pantries and break rooms. It also incorporates  significant upgrades to the facility infrastructure, including a new fire sprinkler system, new energy-efficient lighting, new HVAC systems, and new communications and data networks.

Upgrades to the lobby, sundry store, elevators, stairwells and bathrooms also are included.

“In addition to the interior work, all parking lots at the O&C will be resurfaced and reconfigured for improved traffic flow. The north parking lot is complete. Work to resurface the west parking lot began in November.

“The north, south, east and west parking lots will be completed separately to minimize parking congestion. Exterior work will include replacement of windows and a covered seating area adjacent to the cafeteria.”

The work is set to be completed in April, 2013 – and is being carried out by Sauer Construction, via design work by Jacobs Engineering.

KSC is also preparing to host the new Orion crew vehicle, with work conducted inside the Multi-Payload Processing Facility (MPPF).

The first Orion set to arrive in Florida will be the Exploration Flight Test (EFT-1) Orion, which is currently being constructed at the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) in New Orleans. This Orion will be launched by a Delta IV-Heavy in early 2014.

“This project was designed to equip the Multi-Payload Processing Facility (MPPF), M7-1104, with reliable HVAC infrastructure to support future program needs, and specifically was developed to enable use of the facility in support of Orion processing operations,” the update added.

Given the work – carried out by Precision Mechanical – was only due to last a month, this phase of renovation has now been completed and is now into the turnover operations.

“The scope of work included the replacement of the existing chilled-water system, chilled-water pumps and make-up air units.  In order to maximize energy conservation during low-load scenarios, a smaller chiller was installed, along with the necessary controls modifications.”

(Images via L2 and NASA).

To join L2, directly support this site and access exclusive content, click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)

No related posts.

SLS Mission Ability – PART ONE:

The Roadmap – when announced – will lay out NASA’s flagship goals for the next 20 plus years. This task is under the stewardship of former Space Shuttle Program (SSP) manager John Shannon, who’s team have not released any information into their effort since it began months ago.

While the team is under no obligation to provide a running commentary to the public or media, the lack of a roadmap for SLS remains one of the main criticisms charged against the vehicle which will cost several billion dollars before it even flies.

However, while the November Human Space Exploration Community Workshop on the Global Exploration Roadmap – which is being serialized by this site – has provided some interesting mission options, the SLS Con Ops document – finalized just a few weeks prior to the workshop – reveals the actual foundation of SLS’ hardware, operations and indeed mission baselines.

Known as Exploration Systems Development (ESD) Design Reference Missions (DRM), the Con Ops document – available to download via L2 – introduces the SLS capability as one which provides multiple mission options, ahead of expanding into the current thought process for utilizing the vehicle’s unrivalled upmass capability.

“The SLS will have the largest payload lifting capacity of any launch vehicle previously manufactured in the United States: 70 metric ton (t) class evolvable to 130+ t class (ESD Requirement R-11),” noted the document in the introductory sections.

“This will allow the SLS to accommodate many mission profiles, starting with Orion missions for lunar fly-by and high lunar orbit and eventually deep space near Earth asteroid (NEA) and Mars missions that extend human presence across the solar system (requiring ~130 t).

“The SLS will also accommodate Orion-MPCV missions to low Earth orbit (LEO) for system test and checkout and as a back-up access to the International Space Station (ISS), including transport of replacement ISS modules. Other mission profiles that can be supported by the SLS include science-based missions for deep space astronomy and solar system exploration.

“The SLS payload capability will enable a new generation of planetary (such as a Europa fly-by to collect samples with return capability), Earth, and heliophysics science missions. SLS will also be capable of supporting commercial-based missions and missions supporting other Government agencies, including sending larger objects into LEO, such as commercial space stations.”

While the introduction provides little by way of additional substance into age-old adage of “Moon, Mars and Beyond” – as used by the now-defunct Constellation Program (CxP), the document goes on to provide an expansive and up-to-date overview of the DRMs, whilst adding the caveat the missions may not occur in any particular order and are not set requirements, but are used as a framework to ensure SLS capability.

“The ESD DRMs are categorized as Tactical, Strategic, Architecture, and Analysis timeframe DRMs. The Tactical Timeframe DRMs are intended to reduce overall design risk and help to preserve operations capabilities by allowing missions to be flown earlier in the design process,” the document notes.

“The Strategic DRMs build on the capabilities demonstrated in the Tactical timeframe to ensure a path to achieve the operational capabilities as laid out in the ESD Requirements. The collection of these DRMs is the architecture framework necessary for multi-destination exploration.

“The Architectural timeframe DRMs address the missions where evolved capabilities will be needed to achieve the long-term exploration objectives. These DRMs are critical in understanding the requisite system functionality, and deriving the Program-specific operations block designs that will enable an effective block delivery evolution path. Analysis DRMs are candidate DRMs that are under formal ESD consideration. Analysis will be performed on these DRMs as part of a cost/benefit assessment.

“Once ESD leadership has determined the status of an analysis DRM, the DRM will either be added to the appropriate timeframe DRMs or will be discarded. While programs will need to perform some level of analysis to support this decision-making process, the analysis that supports the evolvability design assessments is not necessary for Analysis DRMs.”

The wording of the above shows some of the challenges of formulating the definitive exploration plan – and the likely reason that as of today such a plan does not exist. NASA’s future plans continue to be hindered by a budget that lacks stability, as much as lawmakers have shown their hand in wishing to protect SLS and Orion from such budget fluctuations.

Ironically, one area of NASA funding which is being subjected to uncertainty is the commercial handover of Low Earth Orbit (LEO), not least from the commercial crew standpoint. With threats of slips – based on lower-than-expected funding and internal technical challenges – there is potential for the need of a back-up, as SLS was intended to be – per the 2010 Authorization Act – for the International Space Station.

However, with SLS’ opening mission – one which is BEO in design – not set to fly until 2017, such slips would have to be serious in nature for NASA to use a vehicle which is now designed specifically for exploration, as opposed to LEO.

Regardless, the back-up ability to transport four crew members on Orion, launched on a basic SLS, opens the DRM list.

“ISS Back-Up Crew Delivery (Analysis): The International Space Station (ISS) Back-Up Crew Delivery mission (DRM ID: LEO_Util_1A_C11A1) is flown with the SLS and the Orion-MPCV, with SLS providing any necessary ballast and launch stack spacers,” noted the presentation.

“This DRM is a single launch of up to four crew members to and from the ISS and is a back-up to the planned commercial crew capability for transportation to the ISS. This mission is flown using the Block 1 SLS without an iCPS.”

The next DRM is currently in the documented approach for SLS’ opening mission in 2017, one that involves an uncrewed test flight around the Moon, on a mission which – according to Con Ops – will last around eight days.

“BEO Uncrewed Lunar Fly-by (Tactical Timeframe): This mission uses a single Block 1 SLS launch with an iCPS and lunar Block 1 Orion-MPCV. This DRM will go beyond Earth orbit (BEO) and test critical mission events and performance in relevant environments,” the Con Ops document noted.

“It will take 3-4 days of transit time, with the Orion-MPCV trajectory taking it around the Moon performing burns as required, and then 3-4 days to return to Earth. The liftoff mass will be approximately 66 t.”

SLS-2 will carry out a similar mission, this time with a crew. Initially manifested for 2021 on the “worst case” scenario, moves have already been made by the Orion Project office to push this up to 2019, or potentially 2018. This mission will last around 14 days, with four days in Lunar orbit.

“BEO Crewed Lunar Orbit (Tactical Timeframe): This mission requires a single Block 1 SLS launch with an iCPS and Lunar Block 1 Orion-MPCV to LEO. It will take 4-5 days of transit time, 4 days in lunar orbit, and 4-5 days for return to Earth. The liftoff mass will be approximately 66 t.

“The iCPS performs the orbit raise burn and TLI (Trans-Lunar Injection) burn prior to disposal. When approaching high lunar orbit, the Orion-MPCV provides the lunar orbit insertion (LOI) burn to insert the Orion-MPCV into a high lunar orbit. The Orion-MPCV will remain in lunar orbit for several days and then perform a trans-Earth injection (TEI) burn and return to Earth.

“The lunar orbit will be selected to maintain the total delta-V for LOI and TEI maneuvers within the Orion-MPCV design capability.”

Opportunities to collect data on the hardware – most notably on Orion’s performance – will be taken via the Exploration Test Flight (EFT-1), scheduled for early 2014.

While these two missions appear to be the most solid part of the short-term mission plan for SLS and Orion, everything that follows is open for evaluation. However, the DRM content in the Con Ops provides multiple options, along with clues as to how such missions would be conducted.

One such example can be found under the DRM of a mission to Geostationary Orbit (GEO), utilizing two SLS launches, 180 days apart. Such a DRM scenario also dismisses the worst-case scenario which shows a maximum near-term flight rate of one launch per year – which would clearly be uneconomic for the HLV.

“GEO (Analysis): The GEO vicinity mission (DRM ID: CIS_GEO_1B_C11B1) requires two SLS launches, with the first carrying CPS1 and a cargo hauler. The second launch, approximately 180 days later, will contain CPS2 and the Orion-MPCV,” noted the overview.

“The mass-to-orbit for both launches will be approximately 110 t each. This would allow crew to perform servicing or deployment missions in GEO, depending on the payload inside the cargo hauler.”

Reverting back to aspirations involving the Moon, the next DRM has seen a large increase in interest over 2011, namely a mission to return humans back to the surface of the Moon.

Work appears to be making good progress on setting up a preferred flight profile for such a Lunar Surface, with one of three options set for deletion. Two of the options can be carried out prior to the evolved SLS coming on line.

“Lunar (Strategic and Architecture Timeframes): The lunar set of missions ranges in distance from lunar vicinity Lagrange Point 1 (L1), to low lunar orbit, to a lunar surface mission,” noted the ConOps.

“The first two of the three mission set, lunar vicinity and low lunar orbit (DRM IDs: CIS_LP1/LLO_1A1A_C11B1, Concept of Operations), which are in the Strategic timeframe, require one SLS launch with the Orion-MPCV and CPS to L1 or low lunar orbit (LLO). The mass-to-orbit for these two missions are approximately 90 t and 95 t, respectively.

“It should be noted that the low lunar vicinity DRM (CIS_LP1_1A_C11B1) is under ESD review for removal.”

The third option requires two SLS launches, this time around 120 days apart. However, the liftoff mass requires the use of the evolved SLS, pushing such a mission out to at least the late 2020s. See SLS configuration option latest (Block 1, 1A, 2) via L2. 

“The lunar surface mission (DRM IDs: LUN_SOR_1A1A_C11B1, ESD Concept of Operations), which is in the Architecture timeframe, requires two launches, spaced 120 days (TBR) apart, to insert the lunar lander and CPS1 and Orion-MPCV and CPS2 into LLO for a lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR) and landing on the equatorial or polar regions of the Moon. The liftoff masses will be approximately 130 t and 108 t, respectively.”

No reference is made to the fascinating proposal relating to the Exploration Gateway Platform architecture that not only returns man to the lunar surface – via the use of only one SLS launch to a reusable Lunar Lander – but provides a baseline for pathfinders towards an eventual crewed mission to Mars.

However, internal meeting notes (L2) just this month show this L2 gateway is now under official consideration, with mission options being evaluated at present.

“NASA Human Architecture Team (HAT): L2 based DRMs being developed,” noted the Strategic Analysis and Integration Division (SAID).

Such a plan revolves around a deep space platform, known as a gateway, located at Earth-Moon Lagrange (EML) point 1 or 2, after being built from pre-launched hardware, providing the host station for a reusable Lunar Lander – which would also be launched by the SLS.

The Gateway would first be constructed at the ISS, mainly using the Node 4/DHS (Docking Hub System), an orbiter external airlock, an MPLM (Multi-Purpose Logistics Module) habitat module, and an international module.

Further articles on the Gateway will be forthcoming, along with Part 2 to the ESD DRMs from the ConOps, which cover missions to Near Earth Asteroids, SLS science missions to as far out as Enceladus, and Department Of Defense (DOD) missions.

Please note following trial run: Clickable GOLD links with (L2) references point directly to cited L2 content. Such content is only available to L2 members (please ensure you are logged in). Clickable BLUE links point to NSF articles and open content.

Images: Via L2 content, driven by L2′s fast exapanding SLS specific L2 section, which includes, presentations, videos, graphics and internal updates on the SLS and HLV, available on no other site. Other images via NASA.)

(L2 is – as it has been for the past several years – providing full exclusive SLS coverage, available no where else on the internet. To join L2, click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)

Related posts:

1. Second Guessing NASA VSE Five Alternative Visions for Space Exploration. As concerns grow in...