Liberty Agreement:

The announcement allows ATK to return Liberty back into contention with the Commercial Crew Development (CCDev-2) winners, under a similar milestone structure ATK proposed when bidding for progression in NASA’s drive to return the US back to being able to domestically launch its own astronauts.

The agreement allows for NASA collaboration on the development of the company’s Liberty Launch System as part of the CCDev-2 activities, but without NASA funding. Their goal will be to successfully impress NASA enough to be brought back into the fold by the time the CCDev-3 awards are made in 2012.

They face stiff competition, not least from what are currently the two leading launch vehicles – the United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V and SpaceX Falcon 9 – both of which have a crew vehicle to launch, whereas Liberty does not.

The unfunded Space Act Agreement (SAA) through NASA’s Commercial Crew Program will allow the agency and ATK to review and discuss Liberty system requirements; safety and certification plans; computational models of rocket stage performance; and avionics architecture designs.

The agreement outlines key milestones including an Initial System Design review, during which ATK will present to NASA officials the Liberty systems level requirements, preliminary design, and certification process development. This effort will continue through to the Spring of 2012.

“This agreement will provide the opportunity to look at the Liberty system to understand its design solution and risks, its capabilities and how it could be used to fly our NASA crew,” said Ed Mango, NASA’s Commercial Crew Program manager. The program is based at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

NASA will provide feedback to ATK based on its human spaceflight experience for advancing crew transportation system capabilities and the agency’s draft human certification requirements.

“With this SAA we believe NASA will benefit from gaining insight into the various systems we are developing, and we can benefit from the feedback,” said Kent Rominger, vice president, strategy and business development for ATK Aerospace.

“In the end, we hope to offer a commercial solution to NASA, the Department of Defense, and other commercial human spaceflight programs.”

Liberty Launch Vehicle – First Stage:

With the appearance of an Ares I – given it works on the same aerodynamic design principle – Liberty is powered by a single, five segment Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) on the first stage.

The large solid motor was set to power the Ares I, prior to the cancellation of Constellation – and may find a role with the Space Launch System (SLS), with two five segment boosters currently part of the Design Reference Vehicle (DRV).

This booster is the same design that was recently tested during the DM-3 test in Utah last week.

The booster which powered the only Ares test flight – Ares I-X - was not the same as Ares I or Liberty, as a four segment booster utilized in what was a successful launch, per test objectives.

During the development of Ares I, the five segment booster came across numerous challenges, the most famous of which was the phenomenon of Thrust Oscillation (TO).

Also known as “Resonant Burning” – described as vortices that shed within the solid rocket motors during combustion due to the shearing of internal flow at propellant discontinuities – the issue relates to when the frequency of thrust oscillations is coincident with the acoustic modes of the motor cavity.

When pressure oscillations drive resonant modes in the vehicle structure, these oscillations are capable of rendering the astronauts incapacitated, or worse.

This was the major concern, that crew health was at risk during the few seconds TO occurs, late in first stage flight. However, engineering work during the Ares I development created several options to mitigate TO on Ares I’s first stage reaching the crew seated in Orion, this risk has – it was claimed – been eliminated.

DM ground tests – and sets of instrumentation, aimed at gathering more detailed data on RSRM (Reusable Solid Rocket Motor) behaviour during the first stage of launch, on the final shuttle missions – have also proven TO to be less than expected.

Notably, the Liberty Upper Stage is also a different design when compared to the Ares I Upper Stage, further decoupling the potential TO effects, especially as TO was heavily related to the Ares I stack in the configuration with the Orion crew vehicle.

Should any concerns remain, the use of dampers and isolation  – as seen with Ares I – could be used. TO is of no concern to SLS, given the configuration of the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV).

Indeed, one of the key selling points for Liberty is the safety heritage of the motor from its days with the Space Shuttle, which – per Flight Readiness Review (FRR) and In Flight Anomaly (IFA) review presentations (all available on L2 for the last 15 missions) – has been extreemly impressive in recent years.

Refinements have been numerous, as engineers removed a number of potential issues, as a matter of course, as opposed to a program requirement.

One such example on the improvements to the boosters – which would live on via Liberty – can be seen with the redesign to the SRB Thrust Vector Control (TVC) Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) fuel pump, which was implemented on STS-133 and STS-134.

The redesign eliminated the highest – although extremely unlikely to occur – “critical 1″ failure scenario, which held the potential of a LOV/C (Loss of Vehicle/Crew) event.

The change to the fuel pump related to a small carbon seal that could be lost/compromised during operation, allowing for two metal surfaces to contact – which would become an ignition source.

As noted in the FRR and Program Requirement Control Board (PRCB) documentation (L2), this change, along with the other numerous tweaks and improvements over the years, would have been implemented on the Ares I First Stage, and thus now find themselves adding to Liberty’s safety regime.

“We believe Liberty offers the safest, most reliable means of putting our crews on orbit,” noted Mr Rominger. “We have the capability – with 44,000 lbs to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) – to launch any of the commercial crew vehicles that are out there to date.”

Liberty Launch Vehicle – Upper Stage:

Liberty’s Upper Stage is the Core Stage (EPC) of the Ariane 5 launch vehicle used by Arianespace, which will be supplied under contract with EADS North America.

The latest generation of the Ariane 5 is based on an evolution of the Vulcain engine that powers the cryogenic core stage. This evolution, called Vulcain 2, provides an increased thrust through an overall mixture ratio and liquid oxygen mass flow increase.

The EPC stage is 5.4 m in diameter and 31 m long on the Ariane 5. It is powered by one Vulcain 2 engine that burns liquid hydrogen (LH2) and liquid oxygen (LO2) stored in two tanks separated with a common bulkhead. The LO2 tank is pressurized by gaseous helium and the LH2 one by a part of gaseous hydrogen coming from the regenerative circuit.

The Vulcain 2 engine develops 1 390 kN maximum thrust in vacuum. Its nozzle is gimballed for pitch and yaw control.

The engine is turbopump-fed and regeneratively cooled. The thrust chamber is fed by two independent turbopumps using a single gas generator. A cluster of GH2 thrusters are used for roll control.

The engine utilizes two turbo-pumps, driven by a gas generator, and sports a GHe pressurization system for the LOX tank and GH2 for LH2 tank.

Ignition of the engine is obtained by pyrotechnic igniters and occurs nine seconds before lift-off in order to check that’s it’s functioning properly, which leads to the main outstanding question on the use of this core stage on the Liberty Upper Stage, as it has yet been proven that the engine can be air-started, as would be required during its role with Liberty.

John Schumacher, vice president, Space Programs, EADS North America, noted that preliminary work has taken place on this requirement, when talking to reporters on Tuesday, but did not elaborate on when the work would be completed.

The engine has a record of 45 consecutive successful flights with the Ariane 5.

The mating of the ATK Solid Rocket First Stage with the Ariane 5 Core Stage is a great fit, for several reasons, according to Mr Rominger.

“What’s really fascinating with is how well the Upper Stage matches up with our First Stage. You would think they would have been designed to go with each other, but in fact they weren’t – yet they matched up better than if we had intentionally designed it that way.

“The other thing I’d like to emphasize is that in 2010, President Obama signed in a new space policy, which said we want to expand our international cooperation in space flight. So we’re taking what we believe is a very good relationship from the ISS with the European Space Agency and NASA and involving that legacy into the commercial world,

“So if you look at the Liberty system, NASA developed the first stage, and the upper stage was developed by ESA. Two companies are taking that and applying it commercially.”

Launch Infrastructure:

Liberty would launch from the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Pad 39B, again utilizing the Ares I approach of utilizing what is now a clean pad, which has left Pad 39A in its shuttle configuration.

The vehicle would re-employ the Ares Mobile Launcher (ML) – without requiring the large amount of redesign work to elements such as the umbilical points, Fixed Service Structure (FSS) and launch mount, as the ML was specifically designed for Ares I.

“We (ATK) asked to come into the Kennedy Space Center, because this is going to be the home of Liberty,” noted Mr Rominger, adding that Liberty could create around 300 jobs at the Florida spaceport. “Clearly the infrastructure, here at the Kennedy Space Center, is set up perfectly to process Liberty, to launch Liberty and (use) the people here.

“We would use the expertise that we have developed here over the last five decades. We are looking to take advantage of the great capability that is here today.”

It is not yet known if Liberty would utilize the Roller Coaster Emergency Egress System (EES), which was chosen via a trade study for Ares I and the ML, but never left the powerpoint stage due to the cancellation of the Constellation Program.

Such an EES would result in a massive structure being built out at the pad, allowing it to be joined up with the ML once the vehicle had rolled out to the pad. Crew would use carts – not unlike those used at a fairground – to be rushed down the track into an underground bunker.

With SLS also evaluating the use of the ML – likely as a secondary option – it has been noted by sources that the HLV would not employ the Roller Coaster ESS - instead using escape tubes in the event of a serious emergency at the pad for the crew or engineers.

Liberty would also benefit from the three 600 feet tall lightning protection system towers, again built for Ares I, out at Pad 39B. These towers were put through their paces during a heavy lightning storm ahead of STS-135, as seen via dramatic photographs from the towers (L2).

From an integration standpoint, the first stage would follow the same cross-country path as the Shuttle booster segments, arriving by rail, prior to being off loaded into Surge and then stacked in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) – a process tested out when Ares I-X was stacked ahead of its test flight.

The Upper Stage would arrive by sea, as is normal procedure for Ariane 5 stages when they are shipped to their launch site at the European Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana.

It is likely the Upper Stage could be barged all the way to the VAB, utilizing the canal and turn basin previously used to ship the shuttle’s External Tank (ET) from the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) in New Orleans.

Rollout of the stacked vehicle would also mirror Ares I, with the two Crawler Transporters (CTs) currently undergoing lifetime extensions and modifications to carry the much heavily SLS to the pad.

Such a sight wouldn’t be seen until 2015, which ATK and NASA note is Liberty’s current IOC (Initial Operating Capability) target.

Importantly, Liberty is without a crew transport to launch, as much as ATK have noted they have already had positive conversations with some of the commercial crew carriers.

Attracting a successful commercial crew partner will be key for Liberty’s forward path.

(Images: Via L2 and ATK)  (As the shuttle fleet retire, NSF and L2 are providing full transition level coverage, available no where else on the internet, from Orion and SLS to ISS and COTS/CRS/CCDEV, to European and Russian vehicles. 

(Click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/ - to view how you can support NASASpaceflight.com)

No related posts.

CT2 Incident:

The two 3,000 ton tracked vehicles have a storied history, responsible for carrying the NASA fleet of vehicles from the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) to the launch pads, ever since the Saturn IB and right through to today’s Space Shuttles.

The CTs would live on past the end of the Shuttle era, by transporting Ares I – after successfully debuting with the Ares I-X test vehicle – or a proposed Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (SD HLV).

With at least two more shuttle missions to go, the Constellation Program (CxP) added a task that was set to take place ahead of STS-133′s rollout – to weigh and relocate the newly constructed Ares I ML.

The Ares I ML test and relocate involves both CTs – with the ML being weighed by the Crawler Transporter (CT-1) at its current location at the Mobile Launcher Platform (MLP) refurbishment site, while CT-2 works in tandem by freeing up the new location by moving MLP-1 to the VAB.

CT-1 will then move the Ares I ML the relatively short distance to its new home at the east refurb site, where it will be lowered down on to mounts. The entire operation – which was scheduled for late August – would be spread out over five days.

However, CT-2 was recently struck by lightning – it is believed, though still under an official investigation as to an exact root cause – after the recently installed special electrical equipment was damaged. The issues with the CT were found after a recent checkout, with problems associated with the control boards for the servo valve on the JEL system. The repair work will take around four to six weeks.

“Crawler Transporter-2: Engineering is evaluating an issue with all eight of the Jacking Equalization & Leveling (JEL) servo valves,” noted the NASA Test Director (NTD) in an opening report on the problem (L2). “The four electronic control boards for these valves were removed and sent to the Malfunction Lab for evaluation.

“The Servo valves (have been removed) and valves shipped to the Vendor for evaluation and rebuild. Turnaround estimate is 4-6 weeks. A timeline is being built of events/tasks that have taken place on CT-2 from 1 April through 31 July. Included are: PM’s, repairs, welding, lightning events, and anything else that may help explain the event. Investigation continues as to possible causes of the failure.”

“The investigation continues with further troubleshooting as to the possible cause of the failures,” added a later update. “The failure analysis lab has been asked to do some additional analysis on the circuit cards to look for any data that would support a lightning strike or power supply failure.”

With CT-2 under investigation, CT-1 has also been grounded for the interim. However, it is likely the results of the lab testing will allow for the release of CT-1 in time to support STS-133′s rollout from the VAB, currently scheduled for September 28.

“Once all parts are received back from the vendor and re-installed, testing will be performed to verify no other CT systems were affected,” added the latest NTD update. “The use of CT-1 is currently being constrained by the CT-2 investigation. CT-1 may be released back into service when the failure analysis of the control cards is completed.”

Crawlerway Testing for HLV:

The home track of the CTs is also undergoing a study, as the prospect of a HLV riding down the crawlerway sooner than outlined in the FY2011 budget proposal increasing as the political refinements move forward.

Under what is still the current Program of Record (POR), Ares I is/was to be joined by Ares V – Constellation’s HLV. The Ares V program was rumored to be considering a larger type of Super Crawler, with six tracks, to carry the Ares V to the pad. (Left: Notional image based on early L2 information).

However, the first references to the challenge of ensuring such a heavy vehicle – one with two full fuelled five segment Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs), as opposed to solely liquid-fuelled vehicles, tanked after arriving at the pad – were provided in this week’s review of construction at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC).

“Study involves testing of various crawlerway rock surfaces to better understand the feasibility of operating a tracked transporter for a heavy-lift program,” noted KSC Construction’s August presentation (L2). “Similar testing was last conducted in the mid-1960s in support of the Apollo Program.”

Initial testing has already been completed on an area of crawlerway just outside of Constellation’s Pad 39B, via a strange looking contraption which aimed to test the impact of over 25 million pounds on the rock surface of the track.

“This compatibility testing was conducted on the crawlerway just outside of LC-39B and was performed at the equivalent anticipated Ares V rollout weight of 25,200,000 pounds versus the Shuttle/Apollo rollout weight of 18,000,000 pounds,” added the presentation.

“Testing results will provide degradation characteristics, rate of deterioration, expected lifecycle of various materials, coefficients of friction and reaction forces exerted upon a crawler-transporter shoe.

“Several surfaces were tested and included rock expected to be optimal for a tracked transporter, rock anticipated to be optimal for a dual-use crawlerway (supporting both a tracked and wheeled transporter), and resilient surfaces targeted to reduce excessive loading of a crawler shoe as it crosses roadways and VAB transitions.”

The findings of the testing, which was conducted by NASA, the United Space Alliance (USA), Architect and Engineering firm Jones Edmunds and Associates (JEA) and a couple of additional contractors, are expected sometime in September. Additional testing will take place, with STS-133′s rollout also aiding the results.

“Testing and site demobilization at LC-39B are now complete, with a report from JEA targeted for September 2010, although there are plans to conduct some additional testing and instrumentation of the crawlerway during the next shuttle rollout,” added the notes.

The iconic 100-foot wide double pathway is made up of a seven foot deep bed of stones, which lies beneath a layer of asphalt and a river rock surface. The surface requires constant maintenance to ensure the smooth passage of the Shuttle during its ride on the CT to the pad.

The latest construction news noted that a major project will be undertaken to repair areas of crawler that lead up to Pad 39A, requiring 32,000 tons of the specialised Alabama river rock to be used.

“This project involves removing and replacing the severely degraded river rock along the surface of the LC-39 crawlerway from Ordnance Road to the Pad A surface. The uniformly rounded river rock surface provides the necessary cushioning and low-friction coefficient characteristics that are critical to all crawler-transporter operations,” added the presentation.

“While the crawlerway foundation includes a minimum of 3 feet of compacted limestone, the minimum depth of the rock surface varies between just 4 inches on the crawlerway straight sections to 8 inches on the curves. The estimated total amount of new rock necessary to complete this project is 32,000 tons.

“All the excavated rock is being stockpiled at the Diverted Aggregate Reclamation and Collection Yard (DARCY) site within the landfill and will be screened into separate piles of fine and larger rock for future reuse throughout KSC as decorative borders, road base and crawlerway repairs.”

Other major work is also listed, including news that Pad 39B will undergo major demolition work, as planned via the Constellation Program. Sources note this work is likely to be placed on hold due to large costs. An article will be published when inquires into the project’s status are addressed.

No related posts.

Ares I ML History:

Currently in limbo due to the current path to confirm the cancellation of the Ares I vehicle – which it was designed to launch – in President Obama’s FY2011 budget proposal, the ML was constructed by Hensel Phelps of Orlando, Florida, following a $263,735,000 contract award in May 2008, which included options including a second ML.

The ML was designed to specifically support Ares I and the vehicle’s associated Ground Support Equipment (GSE) from stacking in the VAB to launch out at Pad 39B.

Working via the Ares I “clean pad” design, the ML would depart from the VAB, following the stacking and integration of Ares I, enroute for Pad 39B, where it would link up with the Roller coaster Emergency Egress System (EES) – an impressive project that has also been placed on hold following the President’s proposal.

The ML, designed by RS&H (base and structure), along with ASRC Aerospace Corporation (prop systems etc.) - who laid off 155 workers in July as fallout of NASA’s “new direction” – consists of the main support structure that comprises the base, tower and facility ground support systems, which include power, communications, conditioned air, water for cooling, wash-down, and was designed with ignition over-pressure protection in mind.

Hensel Phelps engineers worked on the structure at the mobile launcher park site area just north of the VAB, with trestles and girders arriving by barge in February of 2009, beginning the opening phase of work to create a base platform – one which is lighter than the current Mobile Launch Platforms (MLPs) which host the Space Shuttle.

With the giant Launch Umbilical Tower (LUT), the total weight of the structure is around 9.5 million pounds, compared to the 8.2 million pounds for just the Shuttle’s MLP.

Fabrication of the 345-foot LUT begin in May of 2009, in preparation for being placed on top of the ML’s platform as the LUT’s base, prior to the addition of nine additional sections via a giant crane at the build site.

The Installation of the first section was conducted on September 24, followed by a second section on October 15, a third on October 27, a fourth and fifth section in November, a sixth and seventh in December, followed by the final three sections, resulting all 10 sections being installed by January 28.

This was followed by the installation of the launch mounts – again, highly specific for only the Ares I vehicle – on the platform during the Spring.

Ares I ML Relocation:

The next milestone for the structure will involve the ML being weighed by the Crawler Transporter (CT-1) at its current location at the Mobile Launcher Platform (MLP) refurbishment site, while CT-2 frees up the new location by moving MLP-1 to the VAB.

Using both of the Crawler-Transporters for the operation, CT-2 will then move the Ares I ML the relatively short distance to its new home at the east refurb site, where it will be lowered down on to mounts.

“Tentative dates for moving the new Mobile Launcher (ML) to the east Mobile Launcher Platform (MLP) refurbishment site are set for the end of August with the weeks of 08/16/10 or 08/23/10 being the most probable,” noted a memo acquired by L2.

“The operation will take at least five days. The ML is being moved so that it can be connected to the utilities that are only available at the east refurb site.

“Plans are to use Crawler Transporter No. 2 (CT-2) to move MLP-1 out of the east refurb site and take it towards the Vehicle Assembly Building. Then, CT-1 will be used to weigh the ML. The ML will be picked up, weighed, and set down, and this operation will be repeated a second time.

“The ML will then be lifted a third time, weighed again, and moved to the east refurb site and set down on the mounts. CT-2 will then move MLP-1 to the west refurb site. Both crawlers will then be returned to the crawler yard. Plans to install instrumentation on the crawler and ML for the move are still in work.”

As far as any potential role with a vehicle other than Ares I, the ML’s future appears to be bleak. Engineering sources close to the project note that the ML is pretty much useless for any other vehicle, because it would cost more to rebuild the base than it would cost to scrap it and build a purpose built ML for any proposed the new vehicle.

It was also claimed that all the load paths are completely unacceptable for any of the current HLV (Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles), such as the Inline SD (Shuttle Derived) HLV with Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs), or a HLV alternative with liquid boosters.

For the SD HLV, the combined weight of two SRB’s and the LUT would be too much weight for the existing transporters, and possibly the crawlerway itself – a potential problem that had already been raised with regards to Constellation’s Ares V.

The only potential get-well would be drastic, and likely too expensive compared to starting over again, with suggestions to remove the LUT off the new ML, using it instead as the new Fixed Service Structure (FSS) at Pad 39B as a permanent fixture, for use with an inline SD HLV.

However, the Ares I ML base would still be useless, instead requiring the conversion of one of the remaining shuttle MLPs. The bottom line being, sadly, finds the ML as designed out of a job and in line for scrapping, or cannibalization, unless Ares I survives the ongoing political debates – which is highly unlikely.

No related posts.

Ares I-X:

The Constellation team responsible for the opening test flight of the Ares I program launched the four segment I-X booster with dummy upper stage and boilerplate Orion on Oct 28 – which was mainly a large success.

The number one primary Ares I-X objective was to demonstrate control of a vehicle dynamically similar to the Ares I, using Ares I relevant flight control algorithms. The vehicles use the same overall architecture and augmentation approaches, enabling common design and analysis techniques – via more than 700 sensors embedded into the vehicle.

Three post-flight reviews are taking place to evaluate the data that has been gained from the launch, with the first review now complete.

“We will have 30, 60, and 90-day reports to show what we’ve learned thus far. There should be a press conference in December to talk about what we’ve seen in first 30 days,” noted Ares I-X Deputy Manager Steve Davis on an extensive mission review memo acquired by L2.

“We are working to retrieve the flight data. We are expecting to retrieve most (if not all) of it. We have two ways to get data: (1) telemetry where data is sent to the ground and (2) data that was recorded on board.

“Even though we came down hard (first stage hitting the water hard), no water damage got to the data recorder. We are going through it now stripping off the data.”

The parachute failure – resulting in one parachute fully deflating during deployment, along with interference with a second parachute – resulted in the first stage impacting the water at an angle, and at high speed. This dented the side of the booster.

“The parachute failed, and we think it was because of a parachute cutter failure. When the Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) lands, there is a cutter to cut away the chutes so there is not a danger to the divers who are part of the recovery team that bring the SRB back,” added Mr Davis. “It looks like one of the cutters broke, and when the loads distributed on the remaining lines, they failed.”

Despite the hard landing, most of the DFI (Developmental Flight Instrumentation) sensors gained the required data from the ascent, which will be priceless for the continued development of the vehicle.

“In one area, we saw belching; smoke coming out of nozzle on first stage. Some may have gotten down to sensors. Nothing other than that indicates a problem, but we really don’t know yet. (However, we collected) probably terabytes of data. We had 711 sensors. A few didn’t make it. Most did.”

Data was also collected on the Ares I issue of Thrust Oscillation, though further work is required until the full data overview is forthcoming – likely to be within days.

“It looks like the thrust oscillation is in the range of the lower Shuttle levels measured on the SRBs,” added the memo. “Without any data, very preliminary, it looks like it is at the lower, much more reasonable levels, but we won’t know until we analyze the data. We put in special sensitive sensors to measure it.

“We had high sampling rate pressure sensors in the upper part of first stage to measure thrust oscillation. These should have captured some really good data. The Systems Engineering and Integration function is at Langley Research Center. For two days a week, we look at data.”

Ares I-X managers also confirmed that the separation between the First and Upper Stages was nominal, after the stages “appeared” to recontact and send the Upper Stage spinning sideways. The question on if the event was nominal was actually posed by engineers in the Q&A section of the mission overview memo.

“Yes (it was nominal). We ballasted the upper stage. We predicted this. Our 2nd stage was a dummy. Our dynamic pressure was 10 times what you’ll see (on Ares I), and we had a different separation point,” Mr Davis answered.

“The separation we saw was in the realm of possibilities. It wasn’t unexpected to us. The engineers put animation together that showed this before the launch.

Other parts of the ascent produced good results, such as the RoCS (Roll Control System) – which was required to pulse less times to control the vehicle than expected.

“The roll control system fired only minimally as the vehicle rolled very little. We got that data early. It shows the thrust firings over time. We had firings in the 15 to 20 second time up front to orient in the astronauts head-down condition that we expect to see in flight. After that, a couple of minor pulses,” added the memo.

“We rolled 90 degrees to get the vehicle in a position where if there were a crew on board, the astronaut’s heads would be in a downward position. We didn’t have to do it, but it was requested that we do. We wanted the aerodynamics of the vehicle to be in the right orientation, the closest orientation to what the Ares I will fly with crew on board.”

Pad 39B was also damaged by Ares I-X’s launch profile, which saw it – as designed – kick out its first stage towards the Fixed Service Structure (FSS) during the first few seconds of ascent.

With the plume impacting on the pad’s structure, a large amount of damage was found once engineers returned to the pad.

A separate 51 page presentation, also acquired by L2, outlined both the status of the pad, and modifications that will be made to the Mobile Launch Platform (MLP) Sound Suppression System (SSS) to help reduce the amount of damage on the next test flight.

“More damage observed than Shuttle at 95′ Level. No major damage observed at 115′ Level. No damage observed at and above 135′ Level,” the presentation noted, whilst adding “Ares I-X caused more damage than Shuttle; acoustic level seemly louder than Shuttle.”

However, this is not a major problem – given the pad won’t be used for another flight for several years. Plus, Ares I-Y (or Ares I-X Prime as is now likely to be the case) will utilize a beefed up SSS.

“I-X SSS: Not effective. 3-sides of deck surface uncovered. Vulnerable to plume damage. Piping exterior to MLP deck,” the presentation added. “I-Y (I-X Prime) SSS: 60ft diameter coverage in all directions. Piping interior to LM. No Structure Damage Expected!”

Overall, the Ares I-X test flight was a success, although Time magazine appeared to get a little carried away, pointing to Ares I as the best invention of the year (despite the low-end commonality between I-X and Ares I). Regardless, this provided a nice morale boost to the Constellation Program management, and welcomed praise for NASA.

“I was so excited about Ares coming out as Time magazine’s number one invention. Nobody on our team had a clue that this was being considered as one of the top inventions by Time. It also made the front-page article of The Huntsville Times, above the fold,” added Constellation manager Bob Armstrong on the mission review memo.

“It proves the hard work of this team for the last four years has been valuable, and to be recognized says a huge thing about this team. Give yourself a hand. This is really awesome. I haven’t stopped smiling or bragging since I heard about the Time article. I got emails all day from folks who saw the article. It’s really a big deal. I can’t describe how cool it really is. A big part is what we’ve done on Ares I, but also the significance of the Ares I-X test flight.”

Recent – over the past one year period – Ares I-X Articles on NASASpaceflight.com can be found on this link:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/ares-i-x/

Ares I-X Prime:

First suggested by Ares I manager Jeff Hanley as part of his multi-point plan to try and keep Ares I/Orion on a 2015 launch date, Ares I-Y is being deleted from the Constellation schedule, to be replaced by Ares I-X Prime – a five segment First Stage booster version of Ares I-X, with further advancements – such as on the Upper Stage, Orion and Launch Abort System (LAS) testing - yet to be confirmed.

“At Constellation Program (Level II) board, we decided to delete the Ares I-Y test flight from the manifest. Approval has to be done at Level I by ESMD (Exploration Systems Mission Directorate). We assume Level I will approve it and we’ve stopped work on Ares I-Y,” noted Teresa Vanhooser, Acting Manager of the Ares Project Office.

“Our rationale involved timeliness. Ares I-Y was too late to impact the Orion I or Orion II design. It required unique software builds. A whole ‘uniqueness’ that took the team off the baseline. Lots of discussion around this; whether it was smart to spend dollars on keeping the team on the Program of Record, rather than on doing drawings and software for Ares I-Y.

“After this decision was made, the discussion centered on doing something earlier to influence the design in the 2012 timeframe. We’re still looking at test objectives and what hardware is available. We are considering what part of mainline program we can put in to an Ares I-X prime flight that will gain something in the final design. Send us your ideas. We are looking for creative thought processes on what we can do and how we can do it.”

The aim is to have Ares I-X Prime set for an early 2012 launch date, although that schedule remains fluid – based on the availability of hardware and funding.

“January 2012 is only 25 months from now. That’s the goal. I (want) the team stays focused toward the baseline. I don’t want to divert manpower in to doing something else. The agency is focused on doing another test flight. We need to make it valuable to Ares I and Constellation.”

Due to the budget decisions that are being worked on by lawmakers, the approval of Ares I-X Prime as a confirmed test flight is yet to become fully official – as Constellation continue to battle against limited funding.

“We are still under a continuing resolution through mid-December. It will probably go through mid-January. I doubt anything will be approved before then. That limits the amount of funding. Level II is trying to distribute it equally across projects to keep everybody running,” added Ms Vanhooser.

“There is no fluff. It is minimal. It covers workforce and a few hardware bills incurred in August/September where bills don’t come in until October/November. We are frozen at FY09 levels and are not able to ramp to where we need to be for FY10. Be patient. As soon as the President passes the budget, we will hopefully get back on plan.

“We are trying to put a schedule compliant budget together under the constraints we are under. We will continue to work hard decisions back through the elements. We will make sure we keep critical items in mind that we want to get done for FY10.”

Questions followed from engineers on the design and test parameters of Ares I-X Prime, along with the team makeup and what appears to be a tight schedule.

“Ares I-X prime is very early in the planning stage. Vehicle Integration Office will coordinate the Ares Project office Ares I-X prime activities. We will try to get planning done by mid-December. We want to have a set of objectives, how organization would work, and a plan,” noted the answers, which were delivered by several managers.

“We will probably not have a separate Ares I-X organization again. This time, we may have a broader organization. The flight may involve some Orion hardware.

“We would want a 5-segment first stage. It will be up to us to help define what it is and what we can have available, even if it is development hardware, rather than production hardware. We’d like to see our roll control system and a more representative separation system. I heard someone say frangible joint would be great to test. We will try to get as much in as possible to replicate the real flight design.”

Also stated was the need for additional room in the budget to be able to achieve the next test flight within the proposed schedule, given the test flight vehicles – apart from the now cancelled Ares I-Y vehicle – lack full commonality with the Ares I baseline vehicle.

“There has to be extra dollars to go with this. If you build tuna cans (the dummy Upper Stage), you need extra dollars. It is not in the baseline program. All this is contingent on a lot of things. We need to have our plan ready if they have the money and want us to go to it,” the answers continued.

“Was surprised they wanted to fly that early in 2012. It’s 2012 and 2013 that they are looking at it. (We will) want the team to have an idea by Christmas. Then in January/February, it will need to become part of our budget and planning process. We’ve really got to have it by then to get it in the budget.”

Ares I’s future:

A cloud continues to hang over the Ares Program’s future, following the Augustine report into NASA’s Human Space Flight program – which noted that the “Program Of Record” (Namely Ares I/Orion and Ares V) are on an “unsustainable” path.

Constellation workers asked managers for any insights into the timing of the White House decisions on the fate of Ares I and Orion.

“Not much insight. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) directors have been to OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy) and OMB (Office of Management and Budget) several times. No idea when we would know anything. I would say by the time we get a budget in January some decision will have to be made to put budget out. My hope is after the first of the year, we will have a direction to head in,” came back the answer.

“In the meantime, (our) job is the current project and getting it done. We will provide all the relative data they need to make their decision. We want to make sure they have what they need to make the right decision for the agency and the country.”

While face-to-face meetings are set to take place on December 1, relating to the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV – or HLV as it is being classed) in addition to several alternatives – (with an article on the latest documented notes due to be published later this week) – sources note Ares I is in real danger of failing to become the crew transport booster in NASA’s future.

With no decision made, four options were presented to the White House around a week ago, pre-empting a mid-December announcement. Sources note all four options had commercial crew for LEO access. Ares I was not included in any scenario.

One date was also mentioned by sources, speaking of a Crew Space Transportation Development (CCDev) program winner announcement by the White House/OSTP on December 15. This announcement – should it remain on schedule – may prove to be one of the opening indicators into the fate of Ares I.

L2 members: Documentation – from which the above article has quoted snippets – is available in full in the related L2 sections, now over 4000 gbs in size.

No related posts.

Constellation Turmoil:

Constellation’s schedules have been slipping at an alarming rate over the past few years, with the last PMR (Program Milestone Review) confirming a 12 month slip in the IOC (Initial Operational Capability) to March, 2015. This date relates to Orion 2, with Orion 4 – currently classed as the first crew rotation for the International Space Station (ISS), otherwise known as FOC (Full Operational Capability) – launching one year later in March, 2016.

While these dates continue to be the official timeline, internal reviews have found those schedules to be “broken”, with CxP departments across the program reporting they are at “zero percent confidence” for keeping to the March, 2015 (IOC) timeline.

While continued changes to the designs of Ares and Orion are part of the natural development cycle, issues such as Thrust Oscillation and vehicle performance have come at a price for both schedule and costings, despite fine work from the engineering teams tasked with mitigating the issues.

CxP attempted to protect the schedule and budgetary pressures by offsetting these additional strains by deleting test items – notably on the Upper Stage. However, this only proved to cause further disconnects throughout the program.

Issues with the Ares I Upper Stage engine, J-2X, have also been noted, although no specific information has been made available due to the classified nature of certain vehicle elements.

“Disconnects” have been previously noted on various stages of the vehicle, such as with a key Launch Abort System (LAS) test, cancelled with just 24 hours notice due to additional testing requirements being cited by the Orion program, adding months to the realigned test schedule, which in turn added further strain to the already heavily-delayed Orion PDR (Preliminary Design Review).

Orion contractor Lockheed Martin were already complaining last year about continued changes to the requirements of vehicle, which is likely to undergo another major change during the upcoming summit meeting, after it was noted the switch from a crew of six to four will be a lead item for discussion.

Several vehicle systems have been progressing through their development cycle to plan, but have subsequently suffered via waiting for related systems to catch up due to technical challenges, or return to a steady funding cycle, in turn causing a schedule mismatch “ripple effect” through the master timeline.

The summit will attempt to realign all the individual schedules, find potential funding ‘get-wells’, and create a viable timeline to try and bring Ares and Orion back into the March 2015 IOC target. However, confidence this can be achieved without a major boost to Constellation funding is classed as low.

Gap Reduction:

The serious nature of the “broken” schedules have been known for a few months, with an immediate slip of six months added internally to the master schedule, during a period when CxP were evaluating acceleration options. This occurred prior to the latest estimate of a slip of between 12 to 18 months – in total – on top of the current schedule.

Those acceleration options have since fallen by the wayside, with the worst case cost estimate coming in at around $7 billion just to bring the program back to the 2007 tatget of a 2014 launch of Orion 2. The priority now is to attempt to find a “magic solution” of bringing Ares/Orion in with a shot of making the March, 2015 IOC date. Avoiding further slips to the right is the goal, as opposed to acceleration of the schedule.

The situation with Ares is known in key areas of the Agency, with a “9th Floor” NASA HQ effort already taking place to evaluate the viability of cancelling Ares I, and replacing the launch vehicle with an EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) – such as an Atlas V Heavy or a Delta IV Heavy – whilst moving the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) effort towards concentrating on Ares V.

NASA managers have alternative options, including COTS-D, which would initiate SpaceX into bringing their Dragon manned vehicle on line as a bufferzone during the gap. However, while NASA are supportive of SpaceX’s efforts, sources claim it would take a major leap of faith to hand the task of buffering the gap to such a ‘new’ space flight company.

Shuttle Extension:

Building up a head of steam is shuttle extension, with wide-scale support at both the program and political level. Initially curtailed by former NASA administrator Mike Griffin – who was firmly in the Ares camp – the strongest wording in favour of extension, at a program level, was seen this week on the Shuttle Stand-Up/Integration report, on L2.

“Last week, around 200 prime contractors and suppliers went to Washington D.C. and got briefs from the Hill and key NASA people,” noted the report. “They went over to the Hill and talked to over 100 Congress representatives or their staffers.

“The message was that the Shuttle is operating well and is safe to fly.”

That “message” directly counters Mr Griffin’s efforts to warn against extending the shuttle, after citing safety numbers that intimated a disaster was on the cards if the vehicles flew past 2010. It also makes the point the shuttle is an operating vehicle, whereas the alternatives remain out of sight.

The report goes on to note the need to avoid CxP from falling yet further behind its originally schedule – whereas previous statements have alluded to the possibility of acceleration – which is no longer viable without additional billions being pumped into the program, potentially the same amount it would take to extend the shuttle by two years.

“To close the gap it would be necessary to hold the funding to make sure the CxP does not move any further to the right, and to add additional funding if Congress deems it necessary to fly into 2011 and 2012,” added the report. “It was well received but these are tough budget times.”

There are conflicting numbers on how much it would cost to extend the shuttle program, with various options available. Most of the options opt for two orbiters flying though the extension, with one grounded as a ‘near flight ready’ orbiter that can supply spares to her two sisters.

Program milestone charts acquired just this week by L2 confirm that the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) ‘additional’ tanks have been set up the purpose of pre-empting extension, with opening work completed on at least two brand new tanks past the yet-to-be-approved STS-134.

A refurbished ET-122 is also available for STS-135 – currently the Launch On Need (LON) tank for STS-134.

Should extension receive the required funding, MAF would be able to build new tanks, as all the shuttle related tooling has been protected via the outlines in the recent Senate Bill. However, a decision will need to be made soon, with layoffs of key skill set workers already taking place in New Orleans, and a systematic shutdown of shuttle related contractors soon to head past the point of no return.

The end of April has been deemed as D-Day for the shuttle program’s potential to extend. However, the in-built protection from the Senate Bill is understood to have gained enough time for the cut-off to be as late as the summer.

A lot will depend on what the next NASA administrator prefers, and more so the political will to find the best solution to ensure the United States does not suffer from a lack of domestic manned launch capability for over half a decade.

L2 members: Documentation – from which the above article has quoted snippets – is available in full in the related L2 sections, now over 4000 gbs in size.

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...

Ares I-X:

The delay to Ares I-X is not believed to have been caused by SSP’s “wish” to utilize Pad 39B for accommodating Endeavour as the STS-400 LON (Launch On Need) rescue support for Atlantis, but rather a continued fallout from a lack of funds within the Constellation Program, sources note. As a result, Ares I-X may yet be delayed further.

Memos ahead of the decision had referenced that the Single Pad option would be largely determined by Ares I-X being ready to launch “on time” – which was previously slated for July 11 – as a data point for the evaluations. Media materials associated with the mission recently changed their launch date from July to “the summer”.

Ares I-X’s final hardware has been arriving from Utah, and processing has been proceeding to plan, as the test vehicle segments are built-up via flows called “super stacks” inside the VAB’s High Bay 4.  It is not known how many issues remains with Ares I-X, following its negative Critical Design Review (CDR) last year.

Ground testing will also take place at Pad 39B on March 25, when MLP-1 (Mobile Launch Platform) heads over from Pad 39A. STS-119 represented the last use of the MLP-1 for the SSP. A brief ceremony and turnover to the Ares I-X team will take place at the foot of Pad B next week.

STS-400/Dual Pad:

However, the ‘release’ of Ares I-X placing demands on Pad 39B for the short-term future surrounding STS-125 will result in Endeavour taking up residence as the STS-400 Launch On Need (LON) rescue support for Atlantis’ STS-125.

It is understood that NASA plan to officially announce the decision to use both pads for STS-125 and STS-400 at the conclusion to STS-119.

As seen before the previous delay to the STS-125 mission, Endeavour was rolled on to Pad 39B, for the contingency of launching within days of a serious problem with Atlantis on orbit.

This is required due to the unique nature of a Hubble servicing mission, where Atlantis will be unable to provide her crew with the “safe haven” of the International Space Station (ISS).

Instead, Atlantis would undergo a level of powerdowns, and become a lifeboat for her crew, prior to the launch of Endeavour with a four crew subset – which would head to rendezvous with Atlantis, where the two orbiters would grapple via their robotic arms, prior to a transfer of the STS-125 crew to the rescue orbiter.

One open question related to the lightning mast that has since been removed from the top of Pad 39B’s Fixed Service Structure (FSS).

However, engineers responsible for the construction of the 600 ft tall towers for Ares I have created a plan where two of the towers (1 and 2) will ably protect Endeavour. The wiring has already been “strung” between the two towers.

Ares I Schedule/Shuttle Extension:

When those towers are used to protect Ares I on the pad remains unknown, with the projected debut launch date for the new vehicle at the mercy of downstream funding.

Unless there continues to be a gutting of the test schedule for the Ares I vehicle, the FOC (Full Operational Capability) date – otherwise know as Orion 4 and the first crew rotation mission to the International Space Station (ISS) - is threatening to slip on upcoming PMRs (Program Milestone Reviews), with a worst case scenario of 2017.

While downstream schedules are fluid, and will be ultimately based on the potential of additional funds being made available to NASA for either an ‘advancement’ of the Constellation schedule, or for a shuttle extension past 2010, Ares/Orion schedules have already slipped over 18 months since conception on their own accord, mainly via technical challenges associated with Ares I.

Shuttle extension itself was claimed to be dead in the water last month, following a fiscal 2010 NASA budget outline released by the Obama Administration. This even led to shuttle manager John Shannon noting extension efforts were to stop on a Shuttle Stand-up/Integration report soon after.

However, such statements have since been retracted, following high level intervention to emphasis the outline was not a policy statement, and as such NASA should continue to protect shuttle extension ability past the end of April, ahead of an ultimate decision this summer.

That protection has filtered down into the related areas of the shuttle community, with the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) releasing ET-122 for use as the LON tank for STS-134 – which is awaiting funding to carry the AMS to the ISS.

ET-122 - as seen for the first time in the latest FAWG (Flight Assignment Working Group) manifest – has been allocated to STS-135, with Atlantis, as LON support for STS-134. This assignment fills the entire 2010 schedule.

STS-135 also provides a roadmap for extension into at least 2011, with further tanks ready to be produced my MAF, should they receive direction from the SSP.

“ET-138 is the last tank under contract for build,” noted MAF just last week on the Stand-Up report. (ET-122 was already built, but was damaged during hurricane Katrina). “ET-139 will be built, but at this time only the three major components will be assembled – it may be completed at a later date.”

If direction was received to build ET-139, it would provide LON support for STS-135, or become the primary tank for STS-136. Also in pre-emption of a possible extension, MAF have part builds of two more tanks, ET-140 and ET-141 already completed over the last few months.

STS-125:

Atlantis was due to rollover at around 7am on Monday to the VAB – pending favorable weather conditions – for her upcoming STS-125 flight to the Hubble Space Telescope.

However, the expected rollover time was postponed for the interim, due to drizzle in the local area. Atlantis finally started to depart the OPF (Orbiter Processing Facility) at around 11:30am local.

Rollover was completed around 45 minutes later, ahead of being placed on the sling that will transport her over to her awaiting ET/SRB stack.

“All vehicle work has been completed. The vehicle is on the OTS (Orbiter Transport System) to support rollover to the VAB on March 23,” noted processing information on L2. “In the VAB, on the ET/SRB stack, we are changing out the 7-inch QD (Quick Disconnect). The goal is to have the QD re-installed prior to orbiter mate on Monday.

“Working toward a roll out to Pad 39A date of March 31. Pad A assessment showed nominal conditions (post STS-119 launch). On the SRB flame trench left wall, there is a small area (2.5 X 5 feet) that will need repair – this is an older section that was not part of the recent refurbishment.”

Despite Atlantis previously been ready past the point of the SSP FRR (Flight Readiness Review) stage, before the mission was postponed due to the on orbit issues with Hubble, managers are still evaluating late changes to minor mission elements for the May 12 launch.

“An OPO (Orbiter Project Office) technical tagup was held to discuss a potential hardware addition to STS-125/HST-SM4,” added the latest Shuttle Stand-Up/Integration report on L2. “We are currently flying the IMAX camera in the bay and the hand-held camera in the cabin.

“To get good cabin video, a worklight is needed. There is a COTS light that is flying on ISS currently, but some of the internal wiring does not meet the smart short requirements needed to certify it for Orbiter. On Station, it is only used for 45 minutes at full power, but unlimited time at half-power.

“After reviewing this data, it was deemed safe to fly for the mission. A safety briefing will be brought forward to the community.”

A full review of the mission will start with a second SSP FRR to take place on April 20-21, while the Agency FRR – which will confirm the launch date – is set for April 30.

Less than two weeks after Atlantis arrives at Pad 39A, Endeavour will rollover for mating with the recently combined ET/SRB stack in the VAB. Her rollover date is currently set for April 10.

L2 members: All documentation – from which the above article has quoted snippets – is available in full in the related L2 sections, now over 4000 gbs in size.

Related posts:

1. Dual flow ballet for Endeavour and Atlantis – De-stack debate Preliminary milestone schedules have been created for the complex dual...
2. Hubble control system failure – STS-125 launch date delayed A major failure of the “Side A” control system on...
3. Hubble switchover efforts to Side B completed – Suffers more problems The complicated task of remotely switching the Hubble Space Telescope...

JDTV:

The first test of the giant parachutes that will be tasked with easing Ares I’s five segment Solid Rocket Motor First Stage’s return to earth for splashdown in the Atlantic didn’t go fully to plan, with damage sustained to the JDTV – which mimics the Ares I First Stage, if not by appearance – during its debut drop test last summer.

An Integrated Product Team (IPT) conducted a design and analysis review of modifications to the JDTV, which resulted an increase to the strength of the buckled components, following its hard landing, and the inclusion of break-away fins – which were re-manufactured prior to the upcoming test.

This should avoid future damage to the reusable test vehicle, which is deployed out of the back of a US Air Force C-17 transport on an extraction pallet.

Teams successfully completed the tow tests of the new C-17 air drop extraction (pallet) system to be used on the upcoming JDTV parachute drop tests. A new extraction system was required since the standard extraction system utilized by the Air Force has a 60,000-lb extraction limit.

“The new extraction system uses Vectran rope, along with modified standard Army 15-ft drogue, and 28-ft extraction parachutes that have been structurally reinforced with Kevlar radials,” noted Ares Program information.

“The test consisted of towing the modified drogue and extraction chutes with the Vectran rope behind a C-17. The test objectives were to measure and record the tow forces of the parachutes at various air speeds and parachute reefing positions and visually record their proper deployment.”

The drop will take place at 10am on February 26 – weather permitting – at the US Army Yuma Proving Ground, located close to the Arizona-California border, which has been the site for most of the drop tests for the Constellation program.

Last summer, the Orion Parachute Test Vehicle (PTV) – a truncated looking Orion – suffered a failure, ripping off its parachutes and crashing to the ground, after it became inverted following extraction from a C-17 aircraft.

The vehicle is now scrapped, located in the “boneyard” of the Army base.

In 2007, the third Parachute Drop Test (PDT) – which was testing a pilot parachute for the Constellation program – resulted in the Drop Test Vehicle (DTV) being destroyed.

The test vehicle hit the ground with such velocity, special excavation equipment was required to recover the nose of the DTV – which was buried 30 feet below the surface. All other tests have been deemed a success.

MLAS (Max Launch Abort System):

Specially funded outside of the Constellation program, under the leadership of former Constellation head Scott Horowitz and NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC), the MLAS is confirmed to be just a month away from an opening salvo of tests.

First revealed by NASASpaceflight.com last year, several presentations on L2 outline the concept that appears to have grown out of the LAS trade studies in 2007.

During that trade study, three candidates were evaluated, namely the Multiple External (x4) Service Module (SM) Abort Motor concept, the Crew Module Strap On Motors (x4) concept, and the In-Line Tandem Tractor (Tower) concept – with the latter then baselined into Ares I/Orion design.

The trade study presentation – also on L2 – shows a ‘hand drawn sketch’ by former NASA administrator Mike Griffin, dated March 22, 2006, that is believed to be the origin of MLAS.

The “alternative” Launch Abort System was originally set to carry out a pad abort test in September, 2008. However, concerns the system is far too heavy for Ares I, and the continued push to baseline the traditional “tower’ LAS, initially led to rumors the project had been cancelled.

Although never specifically noted as anything other than an alternative “fall back position” system, it is possible MLAS is part of a backup plan for a Human Rated Ares V, given initial studies into man-rating the huge vehicle note it would be impossible to stack with the current LAS tower, due to height restrictions regarding vehicle integration inside the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB).

With MLAS on top of Ares V, the vehicle could be stacked within current restrictions. A Human Rated Ares V would only become a reality if Ares I development was ceased, and the alternative options of EELV and Direct’s Jupiter vehicles failed to win approval under such a scenario.

For now, the Constellation program are only classing MLAS as an “alternative” to the LAS tower, even though it would be near unthinkable to make such a large change to Ares I at this stage of development.

“Like the leading NASA launch abort concept, MLAS offers a safe, reliable method of pulling the spacecraft capsule and crew out of danger in the event of an emergency on the launch pad or during the climb to Earth orbit,” noted NASA in releasing the date of the pad abort test.

“A NASA team is preparing to demonstrate an alternate escape system design to explore different technological approaches. Named after Maxime (Max) Faget, a Mercury-era pioneer, the Max Launch Abort System (MLAS) concept will be validated by conducting an unmanned pad-abort test in March at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Va.”

The dates listed involve a parachute drop test of the MLAS on March 5, followed by the pad abort test on March 27.

Representatives from the Sounding Rockets Program Office and NASA Sounding Rocket Operations Contract, (NSROC), have provided technical support associated with the solid rocket motor systems used by MLAS. NSROC also play a major role in vehicle hardware and mechanical GSE (Ground Support Equipment) fabrication.

No related posts.

The bulk of the workforce at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) belong to contractor United Space Alliance (USA), with their holiday set to begin next Wednesday, through to January 1.

NASA workers only get Christmas Day and New Years Day off – added to the bonus day off of December 26 – as paid holidays, although most workers book the Christmas period off as a holiday. However, around 100 engineers will be on site, working on Endeavour and Discovery.

“Shuttle Processing (NASA/KSC) Over the holiday, will have about 100 personnel working on OV-105 (Endeavour) and OV-103 (Discovery),” noted processing information. “Will be participating in some outage work with the institution.”

Work will focus mainly on Discovery, as she presses ahead towards the January 7 rollover target. In preparation for her short trip to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB), engineers will replace some TPS (Thermal Protection System) tiles on the crew hatch.

“The team is replacing some tiles on the crew hatch,” noted processing information on the latest Shuttle Stand-up/Integration report on L2. “These were removed yesterday and replacement work will continue through the Holiday period.

“Held a Rollout Review with OPO (Orbiter Project Office) earlier this week; now ready for Rollout Review. Only constraint is changeout of two hatch tiles. Considered slurry repair, but R&R of tiles was best choice.”

Managers are also proceeding towards the Flight Readiness Review (FRR) stage of the mission, with the dates set for the key SSP (Space Shuttle Program) and Agency level FRRs. The SSP FRR for STS-119 will be conducted on January 21-22. The NASA-HQ Level I FRR – which sets the launch date – will be held on February 3.

On Endeavour, a week after her arrival back at KSC, following her ferry trip back from California, a large amount of processing work is taking place.

Post flight – and post ferry – operations involve the removal of her tailcone that surrounds her aft, along with work to remove the “Leonardo” Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) from her payload bay.

“Payload removal is underway. (Have begun) tailcone removal,” added processing information. “Working TPS post-flight inspections on vehicle (75 percent complete); WLE (Wing Leading Edge) thermography is about 50 percent complete. Will start window inspections later this week.”

Flow control valve x-rays have also started, along with preparations for the removal of Fuel Cell 2, which is to be performed on Saturday.

“Preparing for removal of flow control valve from OV-105 this weekend and will ship it to the vendor early next week,” noted the stand-up report, which also added that work on the KU band system – which proved to be troublesome during docking – has also begun.

Removal of Endeavour’s three SSMEs (Space Shuttle Main Engines) will pick up over the holiday period, marking the end of the majority of post STS-126 operations, as the orbiter is prepared for her STS-127 mission in June.

Work out at Pad 39B continues to press ahead with operations for the first flight of the Ares I launch vehicle – notably via the construction of the three 600 feet tall lightning protection towers.

Ivey Construction of Merritt Island, Florida are the contractor for the $28 million project that will oversee the construction of the giant towers, which are already rising out of the ground around Pad 39B, with the next stage set to begin shortly.

That was marked by the arrival of a giant crane at the pad, which is so tall it has the ability to reach as high as the top of the VAB. (See L2 over 100 hi res images of Pad 39B’s modifications since 2007 and the blueprints to the towers).

While not the biggest crane in the world, the Manitowoc 21000 will easily aid the finalization of the three towers that will protect Ares I from direct lightning strikes (click here for the crane’s product guide).

The crane likely to remain in use at Pad 39B for around four months, at a cost of around one million dollars per month.

2009 will also mark the opening work on the biggest modification to Pad 39B, the construction of a huge rollercoaster that will become the Emergency Egress System (EES) for astronauts and pad crew, in the event of a major problem with the Ares I vehicle at the pad.

No fixed date has yet been given for the construction of the rollercoaster, which will take several years to build, with design work still taking place at contractor RS&H, on a project that also involves Disney engineers.

Meanwhile, over in High Bay 4 (HB4) of the VAB, preparations for the Ares I-X test flight continue, with the mating of Interstage #2 to Interstage #1. This operation will wrap up Ares I-X activities until after the holiday.

“Ares I-X: IS-2 to IS-1 Mate Preps were completed yesterday,” noted L2 processing information on Friday. “Mate will be in-work today. IS-2 ECS Installation will be continued after IS-2 to IS-1 mate. US-2/US-3 & US-4 DFI Installations are continuing today.”

The launch date for Ares I-X – currently slated for July, but could slip to October – will become clearer next month, following the decision on the STS-400 pad options in support of May’s STS-125 mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope. Should Endeavour (STS-400) require 39B, Ares I-X will be delayed.

L2 members: All documentation – from which the above article has quoted snippets – is available in full in the related L2 sections, now over 4000 gbs in size.

No related posts.

Also known as “Resonant Burning” – described as vortices that shed within the solid rocket motors during combustion due to the shearing of internal flow at propellant discontinuities – the issue relates to when the frequency of thrust oscillations is coincident with the acoustic modes of the motor cavity.

When pressure oscillations drive resonant modes in the vehicle structure, these oscillations are capable of rendering the astronauts incapacitated, or worse.

This was the major concern, that crew health was at risk during the few seconds TO occurs late in first stage flight. However, via recent engineering work that has created several options to mitigate TO on Ares I’s first stage reaching the crew seated in Orion, this risk has – it’s claimed – been eliminated.

This left engineers with the challenge of ensuring the mitigation techniques countered any potential issues of crew function – in other words, that TO would not hinder the crew from carrying out manual commands during the four to five seconds of a TO event during first stage.

Currently two engineering options have been baselined into the vehicle, with a third likely to be added during next year’s Ares I Delta PDR (Preliminary Design Review).

One is a set of “shock absorbers” that will be added to the aft skirt of Ares I. Known in some documentation as the Skirt TOA (Tuned Oscillating Arrays) Concept, but commonly known as the Tuned Mass Absorbers (TMA) concept, 16 actuators are placed around the circumference of the aft to counter the oscillations.

This was classed as an active system – one which would react to the oscillations as required, with the contingency of still being able to mitigate a large amount of TO, should one or more actuators failed.

This has since moved to a passive system, following the series of meetings that concluded last week.

Some engineers at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) are still arguing for an active system, with findings heading to NASA HQ this week for review by NASA administrator Mike Griffin, who is continuing to be ‘hands on’ with Ares I/Orion’s development.

The final decision will be important, due to the passive system holding less mass penalties on the vehicle than the active concept, along with an indication into the current level of confidence that TO is losing its footing as a major problem for Ares I.

The second area of mitigation is at the interstage are of Ares I.

This concept is called the SoftRide Isolator – a set of 200 brackets, weighing a total of two tons, that fit around the circumference of the joint between the frustum and interstage.

Notes of concern were raised a few months ago, relating to their ability to mitigate the oscillations as planned, and that they could exacerbate potential vehicle buckling at the interstage. This was know as “local bending moment due to load eccentricity”.

This led to a redesign of the isolators to “reduce or eliminate” that threat. Work is continuing on the design, though it remains baselined as one of the main elements of TO mitigation at this time.

The third option – which was deferred until 2009 in order to avoid a delay to August’s main PDR for Ares I – relates to isolating the crew seats from most of the remaining oscillations that could ride up the vehicle from the first stage.

This remains on the cards for being added to Orion in 2009, following its references in the latest meetings, which backs up the documentation from Orion’s Lockheed Martin engineers that the isolation ‘crate’ will become a “Change Request” in 2009 – which they complained was yet another change to the vehicle, causing problems with their wish to work with a stable design.

Notes from the meetings (listed on L2) make for interesting reading, with most of the previous engineering overviews showing wide-scale concerns about both the effect of TO on the vehicle, and issues with the planned mitigation techniques. Notes from previous meetings have almost been completely detached from the overly positive overviews given by Ares I managers at media briefings.

However, the latest meeting shows a sea change towards the positive, following an overview of analysis work that has been carried out over the last few months.

It is now understood that there is close to an engineering consensus that the combined mass absorbers on the aft, in combination with the interstage isolator are deemed as capable of “doing the job”.

That job is to ensure crew health remains within requirements when TO occurs during late first stage flight, and within the limits of crew function. The latest risk number of 1 in 150,000 relates to an incident where the crew have to carry out a manual function in Orion, during the five seconds of a TO event.

Engineers found that the only time a manual command would be required at this stage of flight would be via the need to manually abort the mission. Given the onboard computers handle such aborts, the manual command would only be required during a severe system failure – such as an automated failure of Orion’s flight computers – thus reducing the likelihood yet further.

“Evaluations on the ‘probabilistic’ analysis looked at the flight time sequence, and the probability that TO will occur,” notes from the meeting add. “(We) looked at the probability of what event will be likely to occur that would required the crew to react, to a potential abort scenario they have to respond manually. In the final analysis, most of tasks can be/will be done faster and more reliably by computer.”

The analysis also showed that TO may only “occur” - or affect Orion - once in every three flights. This in itself is a major finding, though there is a counter argument that claims that this points towards the computational models – known as “Monte Carlo runs” – suffering from inaccuracies.

On crew function, human tests were carried out on the ability of a crew member being able to carry out a manual function during a TO event. These tests have been carried out at NASA Ames, to determine “what is the TO ‘g’ level that the crew are unable to function at.”

This involved a “two group test”. One group consisted of 16 civilian volunteers with age matching the crew. The second group was made up of around six astronauts.

The crew member was tested in Ames’ centrifuge for 145 second to see if they can read displays on a mock up Orion computer readout – located an arm’s length away, at a font size of 2, 10, 14, whilst being put through simulated g force thrust oscillations.

The results showed that at 10 font, crew incurs reading error of 5 percent at 0.3g, and 10 percent at 1.0g, which added confidence that crew function would not be seriously hindered during various levels of expected TO post-mitigation.

The conclusion, based on this latest set of results, has reduced TO as a threat to the development of the Ares I vehicle to a rank of 35th of the risk matrix list. Previously it was consistently in the top three.

More work is required over the coming year, with a requirement to decipher data to see if engineers can separate g-load vs. time vs. frequency for more wide-ranging results. Additional crew test data will also be carried out as required.

Additionally, data is already being evaluated from STS-126′s boosters – which carried two new sets of instrumentation, aimed at gathering more detailed data on RSRM (Reusable Solid Rocket Motor) behaviour during the first stage of launch.

Ultimately, the first real data point engineers will have at their disposal will come via the test flight of the five segment Ares I-Y in 2011.

Additional data will be forthcoming in the interim period, with additional booster instrumentation flying on downstream shuttle flights, along with ATK RSRM test fires in Utah, and the four segment Ares I-X launch in either July or October, 09.

L2 members: All documentation – from which the above article has quoted snippets – is available in full in the related L2 sections, now over 4000 gbs in size, which includes the world’s largest collection of  unrestricted Constellation documentation and video outside of NASA computers.

Related posts:

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

The main objective is to record pressure variations inside the boosters at higher fidelity than has been achieved in any previous shuttle flight.

These initiatives are in support of the Ares I program and will provide valuable input to the ongoing efforts to overcome problems the design teams have encountered with Thrust Oscillation (TO).

Modelling carried out on the Ares I vehicle predicts two major structural resonances at about 10 Hz and 12 Hz. Natural oscillations and variations in thrust – which the RSRMs generate – are predicted to produce significant excitation of these resonances. Higher frequency vibrations are also of interest for their potential impact on sub-components.

Analysis so far has relied heavily on data gathered from extensive static ground firing tests of SRMs and there is a need to validate results against real flight data. This requirement for comparative flight data will be addressed in STS-126 and several following missions.

Two methods have been chosen to gather pressure data – the first makes use of existing Operational Pressure Transducers (OPT), and the second uses a new Intelligent Pressure Transducer (IPT), according to RSRM and SRB Flight Readiness Review presentations – available to download via L2.

Both transducer types fit to the forward dome of the RSRM, and are located within the double ring of bolts of the igniter adapter ring.

This adapter holds the igniter inside the combustion chamber and caps/seals the forward segment of the motor.

Four special bolt holes provide access to the combustion chamber gas pressure inside the motor through narrow connecting channels.

Operational Pressure Transducers (OPT) occupy three of these positions and a special sealing bolt normally blanks off the fourth. However, for STS-126, it will, instead, carry the IPT.

EDAS/OPT Instrumentation:

In normal operations, the triply redundant OPTs provide a critical cue for first-stage booster separation. Pressure readings are also recorded during flight for later download from the recovered booster - these are used for analysis of flight performance.

Pressure data recorded by the standard SRB systems only captures low frequency variations (a few Hz at most) with low resolution. Design teams are interested in pressure variations in the frequency range 10 to 100 Hz, and this requires additional instrumentation.

Modifications for STS-126 involve the use of Extended Data Acquisition System (EDAS) units, a special electronic Signal Conditioning (SC) module, and additional wiring to tap into OPT output signals at the SRB Integrated Electronics Assembly (IEA).

EDAS units have a 10-year history of frequent flight use in the Shuttle program. They have four general purpose data recording channels and are fitted inside SRB forward skirts. First flown on STS-91 to record high quality data on water impact forces during SRB splashdown (using strain gauges and accelerometers), they are now used to capture other vehicle dynamic behaviour.

The EDAS units are capable of capturing signals at 1200 samples-per-second (sps) and digitising with 12-bit resolution (4096 discrete levels). This means they can faithfully capture signals in the range DC to approximately 500 Hz.

Low frequency pressure content of the OPT signals (DC to just under 10 Hz) is stripped out by electronic filters in the SC module and the signal connected to one input channel of the EDAS.

By removing the large “DC” background pressure (up to 900 psia) and amplifying the smaller residual AC variations (-20 to +20 psi) a resolution of 0.01 psi is achieved. This compares with only 0.24 psi possible without the filtering.

The result is capture of very high resolution pressure data in the frequency range 10 - 100 Hz.

Other EDAS channels on this flight capture signals from two strain gauges and one accelerometer fixed to the inside SRB forward skirt walls. The four signals are time-synchronised within a single EDAS unit allowing engineers to correlate pressure fluctuations with acceleration and strain variations.

For STS-126 two EDAS/SC units are fitted to the RH SRB, but only one in the LH booster due to lack of sufficient mounting holes on the existing EDAS adaptor plate.

Similar configurations are planned for STS-119 and STS-127 thru STS-129.

Intelligent Pressure Transducer:

The IPT is a self-contained pressure sensor, signal conditioner, and data recorder designed to capture pressure data at high sampling rates (300 sps) with 12-bit resolution

Unlike the EDAS/OPT instrumentation, the IPT will capture pressure oscillation frequencies from DC to approximately 100 Hz but with a lower resolution of ~0.3 psi. Full scale range is nominally 0 to 1000 psia. This gives continuous coverage well below and above the frequency band in which Ares-I structural resonances are predicted to lie.

Stellar Technology Inc. (STI) produces the IPT and also the latest generation of OPTs, and both share safety critical elements in their design. They also shared their first full scale static firing demonstration tests in November 2001 on Engineering Test Motor 2.

Size is similar to the STI OPT with an identical body height of 5 inches but slightly larger diameter (1.625 inches versus 1.00 inch). It is powered by a single internal non-rechargeable 2/3 AA sized 3.6V lithium thionyl chloride battery.

There is no electrical connection to any flight hardware - it has a single connector which is an interface to a laptop PC for data download after flight. Data collection starts by “launch window programmed activation”.

Engineers will be able to make direct one-to-one comparisons of flight data with IPT recordings made during several full-size motor static firing tests.

As with all new flight equipment, extensive and detailed assessments of possible hazards and risks were presented to the PRCB for approval. Two main areas addressed were: loss of pressure containment of the RSRM, and potential impacts on other critical hardware in the forward skirt.

The transducer provides structural integrity of the RSRM pressure vessel, and mechanical failure of the IPT could cause structural failure of the igniter.

“Structural failure of the igniter components could result in forward dome burn through, loss of capability to separate during the separation phase, thrust imbalance between SRB’s, loss of vehicle control, and structural breakup.”

Structural failure modes considered were: Failure of the (sensing) diaphragm and secondary containment chamber; Failure of the transducer pressure cap (to which the diaphragm assembly is welded); and battery explosion causing shrapnel to damage other critical hardware in the forward skirt (including the IPT).

Rationale for accepting the first two hazard causes as “Controlled” are that relevant critical structures in the IPT are identical to flight qualified STI OPTs, (12 of which have flown on four STS flights) and so have been given the same classification.

Battery explosion has been classified as “Catastrophic x Remote” leading to an “Accepted Risk”. This is on the basis of extensive tests and applied controls/verifications.

“IPT main battery conforms to safety standards in UL-1642 – Testing includes room- and high-temperature short-circuit, oven heating, impact, crush, and abnormal charging – UL testing bounds all flight conditions, including worst-case short circuit within IPT.”

Demonstration tests of 14 IPTs on 9 full-scale static SRM firings have shown that hazardous battery conditions are not created under normal motor operation.

The final major hazard considered was “loss of igniter sealing functions” by causes related to O-rings, contamination, and sealing surfaces. Again this is classified the same as for STI OPTs (Controlled) since they share identical designs in these areas.

L2 members: All documentation – from which the above article has quoted snippets – is available in full in the related L2 sections, now over 4000 gbs in size.

No related posts.