Crawler Transporters:

Both CTs were grounded, following a suspected lightning strike on CT-2. Engineers found damage to the recently installed “special electrical equipment” after a routine checkout, with problems associated with the control boards for the servo valve on the JEL (Jacking, Equalization and Leveling) system.

Both CTs are now undergoing a replacement of their JEL power systems, with the hardware arriving at KSC a few days ago.

“An engineering review board met to review the recommended repair options for CT1 and CT2,” noted the NASA Test Director (NTD) report into the status of repairs (L2). “Replacement of the power supplies for the JEL, propel, and steering systems along with additional electrical modifications were approved.

“CT1 is anticipated to be back in service mid-September, with replacement of the CT1 power supplies is anticipated to be completed and the CT back in service by to support MLP-1 (Mobile Launch Platform) move from East Refurb to VAB (Vehicle Assembly Building) HB-2 (High Bay 2) by 9/2 as well as rollout of STS-133 on 20/21 September.”

CTs and Ares I ML:

The MLP-1′s move relates to preparations to transport the recently completed Ares 1 ML (Mobile Launcher) to a new site.

Using both of the Crawler-Transporters for the operation, CT-2 will move the Ares I ML the relatively short distance to its new home at the east refurb site – once MLP-1 vacates the area – where it will be lowered down on to mounts.

Prior to its move, instrumentation on the CT will weigh the new structure – which is rumored to be heavier than expected due to a number of modifications – ahead of it being hooked up to the utilities which are located at the new site.

As far as any future use for the Ares I ML, the closed-to-the-media ceremony for the structure revealed managers are intent on utilizing it for a future vehicle, should Ares I fail to live on – as is likely via the on-going political discussions into NASA’s future budget and direction.

A large amount of costly modifications would be required to allow a vehicle – other than Ares I – to utilize the ML, especially around the launch mount area.

“We celebrated the culmination of five years of hard work and dedication with the 345-foot Mobile Launcher structural completion ceremony. The KSC team delivered a project that is technically excellent, on time and within budget. It truly is a fine piece of equipment,” noted one memo relating to the ceremony (L2).

“I want to assure you that although this may have been built for a specific rocket, we are going to make use of it. Like a lot of work with Constellation, it draws on the lessons and legacy of our past programs and will be applied to our future programs.

“From the top, it’s just a beautiful view. Kennedy is an amazing place, and you get to take it all in from up here. You’ve got the launch pads, the VAB, the Shuttle Landing Facility, a wildlife refuge. It really is phenomenal. But, it wasn’t meant to be just a viewing platform, and we’re going to put it to work with its intended purpose.”

The move of the ML was set to take place last week. However, following the CTs being “grounded” – along with next month’s rollout of STS-133 to Pad 39A – this is now likely to take place sometime in October. Interestingly, STS-133′s rollout will gain data that will aid a future launch vehicle.

“Rollout Instrumentation: An Engineering Review Board met and approved installation of instrumentation to measure crawler/transporter loads in support of future vehicle design efforts,” added NTD notes. “During STS-133 rollout, sensors installed in VAB HB-3 floor and the Utility Tunnel at Ordnance Road will measure STS/MLP/CT loads.

“During rollback after STS-133 launch, sensors in the crawlerway and CT shoes will measure CT/MLP loads. In addition, resilient mats will be placed on the crawlerway tracks at Ordnance Road to determine if mats may be used to replace asphalt. Completion of the testing is not mandatory and will not be a constraint to rollout.”

The most likely ‘future vehicle’ that will be seen riding down the crawlerway sometime in the next decade will be a SD HLV (Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle), with elements of the current Constellation Program (CxP) actively working on the new architecture.

The Constellation Program itself remains alive while the Program of Record (POR) is in effect, although they have already been informed of large budget hit via the current plan – prior to the approval of the HLV money in the refinements to the FY2011 budget proposal.

“On the budget frontier we’ve got operating plan together for FY10 and it seems to have stabilized a bit just in time for us to receive the operating plan guidance for FY11,” noted the latest Staff Senior meeting memo (L2). “We got that late Thursday and we put together an initial set of targets for the projects on Friday to roll out and it’s a sizeable decrease. 

“The good news is we have money next year for Constellation, but the bad news is that it’s about half of what we thought we were going to have in FY11.”

Pad 39B:

Signs Constellation is still very much alive and kicking was also seen in the upcoming “construction” plans for KSC, with managers confirming they are pressing ahead with the demolition of Pad 39B’s Shuttle structure – such as the Fixed Service Structure (FSS) and Rotating Service Structure (RSS).

“NASA is proceeding with this Constellation-funded project to demolish the fixed service structure (FSS) and rotating service structure (RSS) at Launch Complex 39B, and the resulting ‘clean pad’ will support 21st Century Space Launch Complex planning by providing needed flexibility for future KSC launch vehicles,” added the monthly construction notes (L2) this month.

“In February 2010, the demolition contract was awarded to LVI Services out of New York, and notice to proceed was issued June 28.”

Ironically, it was a lack of Constellation Program money that led to notes in 2008 that the structures would remain in place – with the now mothballed “Roller coaster” Emergency Egress System (EES) for Ares I being built around the pad – until at least the first full-up flight of Ares I, as seen in scanned images from documentation (L2) at the time – see left image.

The removal of the iconic structures at the highly historic pad are not being taken lightly, with efforts to preserve the “important fixtures”. The work is likely to take around 12 months to complete.

“In preparation for demolition, the KSC Historical Preservation Office has taken the necessary actions to document and preserve the unique history of these important fixtures, and United Space Alliance has been working diligently throughout the past few months to remove hazardous systems and safe the structures,” added the notes.

“Because of the hazards involved in this work, the entire LC-39B pad perimeter has been designated as a construction area. During demolition, LVI may utilize laydown areas inside the pad perimeter fence and directly outside the access gate.

“Also, please be conscious of oversized loads accessing the site. These operations will be coordinated ahead of time to ensure minimal impact to KSC operations and personnel.”

No related posts.

Constellation PDR:

The entire Constellation Program remains in limbo, as the FY2011 budget proposal undergoes a Congressional battle to – at the very least – refine specific goals and timelines.

The Ares vehicles are highly unlikely to return as per the POR (Program Of Record) via any refined plan, with lawmakers currently focusing on a shuttle extension, tied in with a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) – as outlined in the “Human Space Flight Capability Assurance and Enhancement Act of 2010″ Bill.

However, until the FY2011 proposal is approved by Congress, elements of Constellation remains alive, as seen with the completion of the PDR process this month.

“After a week of pre-boards and boards, the CxP PDR was successfully completed,” noted MOD’s 8th Floor News address (L2). “All board members including independent review teams, voted to continue to the CDR (Critical Design Review).”

Interestingly, the PDR wasn’t as “complete” as previously planned, with the omission of several major Orion and Ares elements from the review.

“There were some areas of the design that we noted as still not at a PDR level of design. Those areas were Software (since claimed as complete via sources), CPAS (CEV Parachute Assembly System), and Upper Plane Isolator/LOX Damper designs (to mitigate Thrust Oscillation),” added the 8th Floor.

“The Board concurred that there are acceptable plans in place for FY10 to mature these specific designs.

“Additionally, the Ares Upper Stage/First Stage Separation Implementation will have a further assessment of zero fault tolerant versus one fault tolerant design.”

Also of interest were notes about the infamous Loss Of Crew (LOC) and Loss Of Mission (LOM) numbers, which have often been cited against the Commercial Crew options, and even Shuttle, during claims about astronaut safety. No specifics on the issues with the numbers are noted in the memo, other than “poke-outs” require further work.

“Another concern is the LOC/LOM requirements are not met for ISS (International Space Station) missions. The current estimates for LOC/LOM are within the error band of analysis, but additional work on specific LOC/LOM poke-outs will be analyzed.”

Furthermore, two of the largest issues found with the Constellation Program – as per the Augustine Committee’s review into Human Space Flight – were also omitted from the review, based on the proposed forward plan to cancel the Constellation Program.

“It was also noted that (requirements) require the cost and schedule criteria be met. Due to the new direction, cost and schedule were not included in this review,” added the 8th Floor. “Cost and schedule will be addressed at a future key decision point.”

Despite these omissions from the PDR – any one of which may have resulted in an unsuccessful review – managers noted their pleasure in completing the process, noting the PDR was a “home run” for the Constellation Program.

“The final results showed that we have a sound design, and it is overall at a PDR level of maturity. We understand our risks and have good resolution plans for any open technical issues,” noted one Engineering manager in a memo (L2) to Ares manager Jeff Hanley and his team.

“The board was unanimous in concurring that we are ready to proceed towards CDR. In short, the team hit a home run!”

However, it was admitted that the future is uncertain, with Orion no longer in NASA’s hands, along with the challenges of a FY2010 operating plan which is currently the final year for CxP.

“I know that many of you are wondering what comes next. We have been directed to continue implementing the FY2010 operating plan. You also all know that we have challenges in FY2010 due to losing the Orion cost share, etc. Of course, there are multiple ways to attack the problem, and in order to be effective the program needs to do it in an integrated manner. More to come.”

For the interim, the forward path continues to point towards at least one more drop test – the “Drogue Chute Test 3″ in April, a PDR for the Constellation Training Facility (CxTF) and the aforementioned CDR.

“CxTF PDR Kick-Off (started) March 9, the Constellation Training Facility started its PDR cycle,” added the 8th Floor. “The CxTF team will show the entrance criteria and conduct tours of the facility. The PDR will conclude in mid June.

“CxTF is the last level 4 PDR leading up to the MOD PDR scheduled for July. The Mission Control Center System (MCCS) recently finished PDR and the Mission Operation RECON System (MORS) team is currently in their PDR cycle.”

Commercial Crew Requirements:

As has been stressed before and after President Obama’s forward plan for NASA was revealed, handing over crew transportation duties to the commercial sector must follow strict NASA guidelines on crew safety.

Although the likes of the United Launch Alliance (ULA) have been claiming for some time that they are more than capable of fulfilling such requirements, issues such as abort-related “Black Zones” have often been cited by detractors within NASA, despite ULA’s documented evidence that such issues have already been addressed.

However, now the FY2011 proposal orders NASA to leave the business of human transport to LEO (Low Earth Orbit), NASA managers are closing in on a documented list of requirements, which commercial crew suitors will be tasked with showing their compliance.

“There was a meeting of the Human Rating Requirements Steering Team. This is a NASA-wide team to tailor the NASA Human Rating Requirements for commercial space systems,” as listed in a recent Shuttle Standup/Integration Report note (L2). “The steering team will mandate standards and processes to ensure the safety of crew members.”

Work should be completed on the document in the Spring, leading to a Request For Information (RFI) being sent out for feedback. Currently, the document cites 31 “high-level” requirements that a commercial carrier must adhere to.

“A draft document of these requirements will be released within the next two months, with an RFI to the aerospace industry for feedback. There are 31 high-level requirements,” added the Standup note. “These will be solidified at an Agency DPMC (Directorate Program Management Council).”

L2 members : Documentation – from which the above article has quoted snippets – is available in full in the related L2 sections, now over 4500 gbs in size

No related posts.

Orion – one of the good elements of Constellation:

Orion has suffered from a troubled childhood, mainly through no fault of its own. Design changes, demanded by its awkward launch vehicle – Ares I – disrupted any fluidity in Orion’s DACs (Design Analysis Cycle), to the extent its contractor, Lockheed Martin, made the unusual move to fight back at NASA criticism about the quality of their Orion 606C design via official documentation.

“(The) community must understand that there has not been two consecutive deliveries with the same baseline design, because (of) multiple configuration changes – prior to PDR (Preliminary Design Review) on a non-consistent design.”

The continual changes to the baseline mainly concentrated on stripping Orion of it capability and mass, as efforts were made to aid Ares’ lack of performance. While Ares managers made numerous claims of mass reserves, those reserves were almost always based on what had been stripped from Orion.

Despite being reduced to a four crew vehicle that was only capable of water landings, the ISS Orion was making good progress towards a readiness date of around 2013. Again, the problem was Ares I, which was struggling to keep to yet another refined IOC (Initial Operating Capability) schedule of 2015. The Augustine Committee went further, citing fears of a more realistic date of 2017/18 for Ares I’s ready-date.

The main stress on the schedule related to previous and projected lack of funding for the program, with all the long-lead items associated with Ares I – such as the Upper Stage engine. Orion – by proxy – was held to ransom by Ares I’s development timeline.

NASA managers did back up Orion via its findings on the Augustine Commission’s “Flexible Path” option, placing large support behind a Heavy Lift Vehicle (HLV) and Orion as the two main vehicles they should move forward with – whist omitting any key references to Ares I or Ares V.

“We accept Orion as the basis for American mission-crew access to LEO, and with block upgrades for orbital lifetime and increased entry energy, for return to Earth from deep-space missions,” NASA managers wrote in the 65 page presentation (available on L2). “We concur that an exploration-class, heavy-lift launch capability is essential for eventual human Mars missions.”

See also NASASpaceflight.com’s Flexible Path Review:
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
Part 4: Taking Aim on Phobos – NASA outline Flexible Path precursor to Man on Mars

Yet Orion was surprisingly placed on the chopping block along with the entire Constellation Program, as the NASA FY2011 budget proposal refused to hand NASA the additional monies required to bring Ares I back onto a viable schedule, instead throwing six billion at a yet-to-be-determined commercial LEO (Low Earth Orbit) replacement, despite serious reservations over crew safety from the advisory body ASAP – as much as they exposed flaws in their own findings.

The battle between spending billions on what would be a new crew transport versus Orion – which has matured over its years of design – may become one of the key battlegrounds when the FY2011 budget is discussed in Congress later this month. For the interim, the Constellation team are still working on the vehicles.

Orion’s Near Term Work:

Orion will continue to at least the DAC-4 phase, which in turn will support the Constellation Program PDR (Preliminary Design Review). The PDR is currently expected to be the final role of the Program before it is shut down.

“Some insights into the Orion work still progressing. Orion Projects recognizes the value in completing these tasks at least in some manner,” noted one of the Orion Project managers in an address tagged as “continuing steps” (L2) to his team.

“As we move forward it’s important to make sure we are still focused on the critical work. As a management team we are continuing to develop detailed plans, but I want to be clear that there are some general areas that we should work hard to complete. I strongly believe that these areas contribute to our expertise and ability to launch humans into space.”

The list of work to be completed included the launch of PA1 (Launch Abort test), the design, construction and eventual testing of a full Orion test article as the DAC-4 design and the PDRs.

“This is not a complete list. You should continue on your original plans unless you have coordinated with your supervisor and Orion management. I do recognize that some of our original work (even some of the detail of the items I mentioned above) does not make sense in the current plan and we are ready to remove those requirements once we coordinate. Thanks again for your dedication.”

Orion Drop Test Failure:

Unfortunately, the Orion Project suffered a failure on one of its tests this week, when a boilerplate Orion crashed to Earth after its “parachutes failed to deploy”.

However, the problem is not believed to be Orion or the parachute system’s fault, with the failure memo citing a problem with the rigging associated with the extraction system – although this is yet to be confirmed, as an investigation will be required.

“A quick heads up that the Orion test drop failed. Looks like the extraction system failed to release so the Orion chute system never deployed,” noted the memo acquired on Tuesday (the day of the failure) by L2. “Still saving the remains but expecting minimal hardware recovery.”

The extraction method utilizes a sledge or pallet to deploy the test vehicle out of the back of the C-17. The majority of these tests – which have included testing the giant parachutes for Ares I first stage recovery – have been successful, although a previous Orion PTV (Parachute Test Vehicle) suffered a failure back in 2008 (see image left).

The only other failure was suffered in 2007, when a Drop Test Vehicle (DTV) with an Ares I pilot parachute suffered a fault with the riser connecting the parachute to the DTV.

The vehicle – dropped from a C-130 at 17000 feet – was destroyed, with parts of the DTV needing to be extracted from depths of up to 30 feet below the surface.

Orion Isn’t To Blame:

With a large part of the NASA and contractor workforce demoralized by the change of direction noted by President Obama’s proposed plan for the space program, managers have been quick to address their respective teams.

The general theme of the majority of the addresses point toward the upcoming battle in Congress, while others point to finishing their work in style, in order to benefit future programs – as was seen via an address to the Orion team.

“I feel compelled to offer some thoughts. Please feel free to share them – with your colleagues as you think appropriate and useful,” noted Dr. Michael G. Ryschkewitsch – Chief Engineer, Office of the Chief Engineer, NASA HQ – in an address acquired by L2.

“I have gotten a number of emails and queries about how we arrived where we are today. The ones that bother me most are the ones that amount to “we must have been stupid to have such a bad plan” and/or “we executed so badly that…” Neither one of these sentiments could be further from the truth. Here is my take.

“The Augustine panel was very clear in their report and in their public briefings that we had a solid plan; we knew what it would cost and that we were executing well. They were also clear that the plan we had was underfunded and could not simultaneously develop the ISS IOC capability and sufficient advance work toward the Moon. They also correctly pointed out that we no longer had sufficient technology investments to give the program long-term legs.

“So how did we get here? The plan we had was to do those things, appropriately phased, in parallel. When it became clear that the budget could no longer support it all, a decision was made to cut the technological investments with the goal of restoring them later if and when the budget picture improved. That of course never happened.

“Due to a wide variety of continuing resolutions, non-appearance of anticipated increases (perhaps “hoped” is a better word), etc, we had to repeatedly cut back on the long term activities in favor of the near term. In a word, our stakeholders made the determination that the plan we had was not affordable.

“This is no different than when we make changes in our personal lives to match what we want to do and how we do it with what we can afford. This is in no way a reflection on the quality of the work or the quality of the people.

In asking the teams to continue to work on the progress Orion has already made, Mr Ryschkewitsch cited the cancellation of Space Station Freedom, and how the work on that project then benefited the design and construction of the ISS.

“As much as I feel the loss personally, I know it is nothing compared to that of all the people who have been giving their blood, sweat and every ounce of their creative ability to this effort every day for so long. That said, we cannot just stop.

“There are a great many activities that must be completed and documented so that we can get the benefits of our previous investments. Some of you had experience on the various iterations of the space station and know that the current ISS draws heavily on earlier work completed for the cancelled versions, particularly Freedom.

“Had we simply stopped, rather than finishing the work, documenting and archiving it, we would have lost a great deal.”

While Mr Ryschkewitsch appeared to back the proposed changes to NASA’s future – to the extent he believes their will be a large amount of exciting work in the future – the address ends with a note of pride for being associated with the Constellation Program.

“As we finish this phase of our work, I am proud to be associated with the Constellation team and particularly with the Engineering workforce and leadership. I cannot take credit but I hope you will allow me to use the word “we.” We worked hard, we worked smart, and I believe that there is no organization or group of people that could have done better.

“This has been an immensely difficult undertaking and we have executed it well, learning and improving every day. Our challenge now is to channel our grief into resolution to close out the current work with the same dedication we have had, and then to turn ourselves to very bright future opportunities. I have seen what we can do and I have been extremely impressed. I know we are up to the challenges ahead and I am excited by the opportunities.

“Thank you all for all you have done. I look forward to being able to share this future with you as we move upward and outward.”

The next Constellation article will be based on documentation and memos on Ares’ final work, based on the proposed plan.

L2 members : Documentation – from which the above article has quoted snippets – is available in full in the related L2 sections, now over 4500 gbs in size

Related posts:

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

Bolden’s Key Speech:

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden will make the most important speech of his short tenure thus far on Monday, with the first clues on what will be a new direction for the Agency set to be revealed – based on the agency’s fiscal year 2011 budget.

As reported by NASASpaceflight.com on January 23, Ares I and Ares V’s battle to cling on to life – an uphill battle since 2008, when the internal schedules started to dramatically slip via funding and technical issues – was coming to an end, along with an obvious omission of a lunar program in NASA’s own interpretations of the Augustine Committee-driven Flexible Path plan.

A few days later, some of the mass media – led by the Orlando Sentinel – took the news a stage further, citing “insiders” as claiming the aforementioned were being officially cut from NASA’s future.

With the Sentinel’s article paraphrased and syndicated throughout the mass media and several other space sites, Constellation managers decided to act, informing the workforce on their official position.

“Orion Team: A few news bureaus and bloggers have been reporting on some major changes coming our way. Sometimes the number of reports gives the impression of validity when in fact they are all reporting on the same rumor,” noted Orion Project manager Mark Geyer, via one of several memos acquired by L2.

“I can tell you that I have not received any direction or information that would confirm what they are saying. That being said, it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that there will be some changes announced next week and that they may be significant.

“Again, I have no specific information on what that might be.”

See also NASASpaceflight.com’s Flexible Path Review:
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
Part 4: Taking Aim on Phobos – NASA outline Flexible Path precursor to Man on Mars

SD HLV Status:

“Some changes” may be underplaying the reality, with several NASA departments already carrying out evaluations on one of the major elements of the likely future path for NASA – moving away from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) based around the development of a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle.

While Ares I’s role for International Space Station (ISS) missions heads to a commercial service provider, the HLV will be contracted out – not unlike NASA already does to some extent with the shuttle – moving to a multi-company effort led by Boeing, partnering with Alliant Techsystems, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne and United Space Alliance (USA), with heavy NASA involvement from Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC).

As to how soon this vehicle will be developed will depend largely on available funding, with the question of shuttle extension still lacking a definitive answer, along with how the NASA budget will be reallocated over the next 10 years, based on purchasing commercial flight services to an ISS that will be extended to 2020.

While those questions are yet to be officially addressed, NASA managers are pushing forward at a healthy pace to work towards an “early” test flight of what is now heavily confirmed as based on the DIRECT team’s Jupiter-241 Stretched Heavy Launch Vehicle.

The early indications of achieving a fast-track approach to the SD HLV – especially when compared to the sluggish pace of Ares V’s development – are extremely encouraging, with the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) confirming available materials and required tooling are largely in place to construct a test flight vehicle, likely based on a normal “Shuttle” ET core.

This vehicle “could be ready to fly around late 2012″ according to MAF sources, which points to a regular shuttle Main Propulsion System (MPS) with three Space Shuttle Main Engines, along with two four segment Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB’s).

Ironically, the availability of SD HLV assets are mainly thanks to efforts made to protect for the possibility of a shuttle extension – especially at MAF, who have since confirmed they have enough materials and part-built tanks to construct no less than three new ET’s with materials to spare, with all of the shuttle ET tooling either still in-situ or protected in storage on site.

“Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) (NASA/JSC): Had a good review. Talked about several applications to the Shuttle-derived and inline configurations and demonstrations. Reviewed the status of the SSME’s. Looks like we will have at least four Block II SSME flight sets to support that, and can probably get another engine or two from Block I or Phase II engines,” noted information on this week’s Shuttle Standup/Integration report (L2).

“It appears that quite a bit of the assets from the ET would be available, not only the tooling and processing, but the hardware. Probably would be enough hardware to support 90 percent of an inline ET demo, and then probably two or three Block I flights (80 percent of hardware per flight).”

A timeline of around 36 months has been cited for the stretched ET core configuration, although the question of a four SSME MPS – along with test stand requirements – needs to be addressed to provide a viable timeline for this configuration of vehicle to be ready for flight.

Regardless, the continued benefit of the HLV’s shuttle commonality is aiding the positive evaluations, as the SSP use the findings from their Sidemount review cycles to already move into a costing phase for the HLV.

“Had a good review of the infrastructure for the flight software, looking at not only the application of the Shuttle flight software to an inline vehicle configuration, but all the processing that goes along with it, including flight design, validation and verification. Most of that applies directly to an inline,” added the Standup report.

“Will look at the commonality between the payload carrier for side mount and the upper shroud for the inline. Hope by the end of the month to have a first cut of the cost for the inline to compare to the sidemount, and hopefully will have something to pass over to the Business Office for a more detailed cost.”

Early information also indicates that this new approach is receiving significant support within the US Congress, as it provides the needed means to transition from Shuttle to the new program with all the same benefits Ares was intended to produce.

Even the long-time Constellation supporter, Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) is understood to be supportive of this alternate plan, along with many of his colleagues.

Ares End Game:

In what may be one of the final evaluations by the Ares team, managers have been looking at the costings of two more Ares I-X style test flights.

This was expected, following Ares manager Jeff Hanley’s plan to replace the Ares I-Y test flight in around 2013 as part of his efforts to try and save the Ares program from slipping yet further on the schedule.

“Came up with draft budget for 2X (Ares I-X Prime/I-X2), sat down with last week to discuss delta required over already existing test budget flight,” noted a January 25 memo acquired by L2. “Folks working Ares 2X and 3X (Ares I-X Prime/I-X3), and working how to get data.”

The memo also noted continued efforts to design Constellation’s Lunar plan, via a Lunar Ops Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM) that was conducted just last week.

This points to Constellation efforts to continue to work the full POR (Program Of Record) despite the defunding of the Altair Program, likely in the hope of additional funding to return Constellation back on track to some extent – as much as that now appears to be a lost cause.

“We’re all seeing much in the press regarding the future of human space flight. I can’t predict how the current round of Cx second guessing is going to go. We have a Cx program and are continuing the work until/unless national space policy changes,” noted MOD head Paul Hill on another address to the workforce. “If that happens, we’ll reshape our plans and move out accordingly.

“Although the uncertainty is frustrating and unnerving, try to not waste a lot of brain cells speculating and wringing your hands about all of the permutations. The angst won’t likely help you work on whatever you have on your plate.

“Keep your eye on the ball in the plan/train/fly job the ISS and Shuttle programs and, more importantly, their crews are relying on us for every day. Keep working the Cx program that is before us. If it evolves, we’ll evolve with it, again.”

Mr Hill also made an important point, noting that the direction provided by the President still has a long way to go before it is realized as a final plan via Congress.

“Nothing has actually happened yet, whether that’s within NASA or in the White House as far as changing national space policy. Further, Congress will ultimately engage with the White House, and there will be some amount of iteration leading up to any final, new policy.”

Backing Mr Hill’s point about the political process that remains was Johnson Space Center (JSC) director Mike Coats, who addressed his workforce on Friday.

“As you know, media speculation continues on the President’s budget and its potential implications to NASA’s future. Please remember that the budget process is just that – a process – which may take many months.

“As additional details become available, we will continue to share and update our information. We will also schedule a JSC All Hands in the near future and let you know that date as soon as possible.

“So, once again, let’s stay focused on our mission and not let distractions, speculation or rumors affect our continued excellence, our commitment to safety or our care and concern for each other.”

Both Mr Hill and Orion’s Mr Geyer made comparisons to the transition of Space Station Freedom into the International Space Station. However, it was Mr Geyer that provided a strong statement on his belief in the importance of the US Human Space Flight program, and its continuation.

“Those that think deeply about this subject know that the ability to fly people into space is critical for a world power. We see this manifested in the drive by emerging powers to achieve that capability.

“However, you are in a very small group of people who has actually created this capability in the past and/or are the leaders in enabling this capability for the United States in the future. You should be proud of that, and I am confident your hard work will not be wasted.

“The leadership team from (Associate Administrator for the Office of Exploration Systems Mission Directorate) Doug Cooke on down will work with General Bolden to develop a strategy from whatever direction we are given. I will share this with you as soon as I can.

“I continue to tell people that my favorite part of the job is working with the great people who make up the Orion project. Thanks for all of your hard work. More to come.”

Live coverage and interactive debate of General Bolden’s speech on Monday will be provided here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=44.0

L2 members: Documentation – from which the above article has quoted snippets – is available in full in the related L2 sections, now over 4500 gbs in size

No related posts.

It is still uncertain as to how much of the future plan will be outlined by – or via – President Obama, with some media noting the possibility of some form of a public announcement as soon as next week, or as late as the summer.

However, it is known what some selected NASA managers are working on, which in turn is providing some level of information on what NASA will be undertaking in the coming years – pending the big question of NASA’s future budget support.

Despite what can only be described as politically-driven armwaving from the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP), very few people of power are taking any stock in their recommendations, notably to continue to focus on the Program Of Record (POR) based around Ares I, and their continued distain at the evaluations to extend the shuttle program past 2010.

While Ares I is suffering from death throes, NASA managers have openly noted on documentation that they are evaluating commercial crew launch options for transporting astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) in four to five years time. Current favorite for providing this role is the Atlas V-Heavy.

ASAP’s negativity surrounding extension of the shuttle program centers around a minimum requirement to recertify the vehicles in the event of additional missions – which is the second time such a reference has been made, and the second time Space Shuttle Manager John Shannon has reacting by dismissing their comments.

“The ASAP Report has been released. Read it so you can be informed. This report did not mention the certification/verification work done by the SSP since 2005,” Mr Shannon noted on the latest Shuttle Standup/Integration report – available on L2 – before citing an example of just how well the vehicles are performing.

“As proof of how well the technicians are maintaining the vehicles and equipment, during the STS-129/ULF3 mission, there were only two IFAs (In Flight Anomalies): 1) a clogged urine filter; and 2) a burned-out lightbulb. This performance indicates how well the team is doing in putting together an outstanding vehicle that performs well in flight.”

However, with only one major effort to extend the program at the political level remaining, the possibility of extending shuttle is become less likely by the month. Mr Shannon also appeared to accept extension isn’t going to happen.

“The State of the Union address from President Obama is January 27. The FY10 budget rollout will be February 1. There are no changes anticipated to the Shuttle plan for this year,” he added on the Standup report. “We know what we have to do, and how to do it. (Mr. Shannon) expressed his pride in the SSP Team and all of the hard work it performs on a daily basis.”

With the three superstar vehicles now contemplating a retirement of being poked and prodded by tourists, no one will miss their house calls more than the ISS, which will have to survive on the rations of the Russian Progress, the European ATV, the Japanese HTV and the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) partners – all of which will not come close to the upmass and downmass capability of the shuttle.

Ironically, the ISS is likely to be extended to 2020, despite losing its main lifeline, along with thousands upon thousands of dedicated and world class engineers. However, there may be a silver lining in the near and distant future, as NASA is refocused away from Low Earth Orbit (LEO), with a new Heavy Lift Launcher (HLV) as its centrepiece.

“Emphasis is being placed on a Shuttle-derived in-line activity that is looking at a Block 1 concept that will utilize existing Shuttle assets after the end of the SSP,” noted a Standup report last week. “The goal is to put some flights together and to determine a timeline and a prospective budget.”

As reported by NASASpaceflight.com, a “special team” was set up by NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden to evaluate all the Heavy Lifter options and alternatives to Ares V.

Their findings have since been presented, with the Sidemount HLV losing out to the In-Line Shuttle Derived HLV, which sources claim is based on a Jupiter-241 Stretched Heavy. Members of the “Direct” effort met again with NASA’s top management at NASA HQ just this week.

As a result, the SSP has changed its main focus away from the Sidemount HLV to the In-Line concept, as noted in this week’s standup report.

“Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) (NASA/JSC): The Shuttle-derived in-line activity is proceeding well. A review of how much of the MPS (Main Propulsion System) components can be utilized has been held and the results look promising.

“There will be a review of how to apply Shuttle flight software to the HLV on Friday. Options for performing an early demonstration will be discussed with Mr. Shannon.”

While timelines and schedules for the HLV aren’t likely to be known for some time, the roles this vehicle will be used for – past NASA’s involvement with the ISS – remains the main question.

Early indications of how NASA’s forward path would be refined showed support for visiting a Near Earth Object (NEO) as a deep space mission – and as noted on NASA’s internal “Flexible Path” evaluation presentation. This may remain the case, although very little has been heard since its section in the aforementioned presentation, bar a few documented mentions that this could be pushed back until after a Mars mission.

What has received a large amount of political and NASA attention over recent weeks is one of the other options outlined in the presentation – for manned missions to construct a giant telescope in Geostationary orbit (GEO), and possibly as far as the region of Earth-Moon L1, before being carried to their operational location at SE L2 (Sun-Earth L2).

Both the Telescopes and NEO missions would utilize Orion, a Hab/Servicing Node, and ride with a Centaur Upper Stage.

Specific mission evaluations have already started at NASA, with support at the Senate level (request was made not to name the NASA managers in this article). However, it remains uncertain if such an approach would come before, after, or even replace a mission to a NEO – although NASA’s internal findings also support the priority of working towards the construction of telescopes as a priority on the roadmap.

“Deep-space telescope-assembly missions described in this package are ‘even easier’ and more incremental than NEO exploration, so they may provide options for a gentler and quicker start than envisioned by the Augustine Committee.”

Notably, all references towards the initial exploration goal of President Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) – landing on the moon and setting up a lunar base – have vanished, and threaten to disappear completely from NASA’s ambitions.

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

Mars Orbit/Phobos Landing:

The big prize always has been – and continues to be – Mars. The roadmap, however, to achieve a Neil Armstrong-style footstep on the surface of the Red Planet is set to change if the Flexible Path approach is confirmed, with the preferred choice to send a human expedition into the orbit of Mars – without landing – before heading to its nearby moon of Phobos.

“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 on L2).

“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.”

Citing an example mission, NASA managers outlined how they would approach the mission duration for the crew – which would be up to 650 days based on a short stay mission.

“This example mission uses an ‘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. 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 12x the staytime) are also feasible for a Phobos mission.”

As to when such a mission would be viable to launch is unknown. However, it would involve a large ramp up in the use of the HLV – with up to 15 launches of the heavy lifter to send all the elements of the Mars Transport Vehicle (MTV) into LEO for assembly.

For the purpose of the presentation’s example, Ares V and Ares I are illustrated – although neither are cited by name in the presentation – along with a MTV that is made up of numerous propulsive stages, a large Hab Module (CTV) and Orion.

“The mission begins with the launch of the Crew Transfer Vehicle (CTV). Propulsive stages for the major in-space maneuvers are launched next. 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,” added the presentation.

“Assuming hydrogen-oxygen in-space propulsion, the number of HLV launches varies between 10 and 15. Once all of the in-space propulsive stages are assembled in LEO, the crew is launched via Orion and the crew departs for Mars.”

Incidentally, the example mission involves a fly-by of Venus on the return leg – and the closest man has ever been to the Sun – along with possible flybys of several asteroids.

“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.

“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 is targeted to flyby Earth and is expended in deep space.”

The NASA authors then focus on why they approached Mars via a “Phobos-First” mission, noting it was first suggested by the Augustine Committee.

“Our choice to include a short-stay human visit to Phobos as an example step toward humans-on-Mars is outside the framework of missions extensively analyzed 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.”

In fact, the presentation goes on to support the idea of targeting a landing on Phobos prior to a manned mission to the surface of Mars, citing formidable challenges with the latter.

“Augustine Committee advocated a trip to orbit Mars and/or rendezvous with its moons prior to a trip to land on Mars. Such a trip nominally lasts three years, but could be made shorter with significant delta V penalty.

“2-yr mission (30-45 days at Mars, all-chemical propulsion) requires ~10-15 HLVs and a Venus flyby. 3-yr mission (1.5 years at Mars, all-chemical propulsion) requires ~5 HLVs. ~3 HLVs if nuclear thermal propulsion (see image left).

“On the first trip to Mars, why go all that way but not land? Formidable challenges of EDL (Entry, Descent, Landing) and ISRU (in situ resource utilization), and expense of surface systems, add to an already formidable list of other challenges.

“However, landing reduces radiation and may provide gravity reconditioning. A shorter visit orbiting Mars (e.g., a 2-year Phobos mission) avoids the ‘high bar’ of a surface mission while also minimizing radiation and microgravity exposure, at the cost of more Earth launches.”

Interest in Phobos/Aiding Mars Mission:

Further comments are made to support a Phobos mission as a precursor to a manned mission to Mars, primarily from two standpoints; a learning curve for a future mission to Mars, and the Mars science that can be gained from Phobos.

“The mystery of the origin of Phobos can be resolved, and its evolution since formation can be investigated by field geologists on site in contact with a larger team back on Earth. As a possible D-type (organics-rich with possible interior ice) asteroid, it offers science beyond what is readily available in the NEO population, and can shed light on the objects that delivered the initial inventory of water and organics to the surfaces of Earth and Mars,” the presentation continued.

“Returned samples would contain a record frozen very early in the formation of the solar system. The work would benefit significantly from a conjunction-class mission (540 days vs. 40 days at the target), since Phobos is a large and diverse body.

“Phobos has been a collector of ejected Martian surface material for billions of years. That material is a record of the history of early Mars that may not even be preserved on Mars itself due to weathering. Martian material should be readily recognizable by color for collection. These samples would be an important supplement to samples collected directly from the surface of Mars.”

Supported by robotic companions such as Rovers, the astronauts would focus on collecting science samples for return to Earth and search for water ice – all whilst in the shadow of the Red Planet.

“Operation of Mars rovers from Earth is limited by the light time and communication opportunities to once-per-sol driving and articulation commands. From Phobos, a landing site would be visible about twice per sol for four hours each time, so on the order of four hours per sol during daylight.

“Two rovers with sufficient longitudinal separation could be operated by a single astronaut during a reasonable workday. The almost zero latency would permit vastly more efficient field work and sample collection on Mars than possible if they are operated from Earth. Even joy-sticked driving would be feasible, allowing the rovers to cover much greater distances.

“The ability to interact with the environment in real time would significantly improve our understanding of the geology and our ability to select samples that best reveal the physical and biological history of Mars. Samples can be launched into orbit for pickup by the crew, or for later pickup by robotic return orbiters. This work would also benefit significantly from a conjunction-class mission.

“The low density of Phobos and its D-type spectrum suggests the possibility of large amounts of interior ice. Accessible ice would be a tremendous boon to later crewed Mars missions if it enables refueling in Mars orbit.”

Regardless, Phobos presents a number of Mars-like challenges to a manned mission, and certainly isn’t an easy route. However, the benefit of taking on Phobos would allow NASA engineers and astronauts to learn how to approach a subsequent Mars mission by proxy.

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

Such challenges mainly relate to the safety of the crew – which in turn would focus engineering efforts via the design of the MTV/CTV and Orion.

“Passing closer than 1 AU distance to the Sun poses significant mission, vehicle design and human health issues which the mission approach must be designed for,” added the presentation.

“Radiation Shielding: Additional shielding mass to protect from solar flares during solar maximum. Since the strength of the radiation dose is inversely proportional to/or dose to the crew. Potential risks are higher risk of carcinogenesis, acute syndromes, CNS (central nervous system) effects and degenerative effects due to longer transits.

“Thermal Control: Vehicle heat load increases with closer perihelion passage. Deployable sun shades are probably required for short-stay missions to shadow critical vehicle components and areas. Deployable radiators and additional active cooling loops may be required.

“Vehicle Orientation: Due to the increased thermal and solar influence, vehicle systems including solar arrays and sunshades must be positioned relative to the sun with tighter control in order to prevent overheating.

“Launch vehicle campaign: The shorter total duration of opposition-class missions comes at the expense of higher total delta V, and this varies significantly with opportunity. The net result is a need to launch more in-space propulsion elements, compared to the longer, long-stay conjunction-class missions.

“In addition, spending an entire Mars mission in microgravity (rather than interleaving a 500+ day stay in the 3/8 g environment of the Mars surface) would be far outside current human micro-g experience envelope (n = 1 @14 months) no matter which trajectory option is used.

“Mitigation might be based on a modified exercise and pharmaceutical program, or artificial-g vehicle design; both are unprecedented. Unique costs and benefits of missions similar to the example would need to be evaluated in the context of overall Flexible Path objectives.”

Several additional elements surrounding the technical aspect of comparing a mission to Phobos and Mars are also outlined, prior to a supportive conclusion that outlines Phobos as the best “legacy” for a Mars 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 inspace 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. Key Accomplishments: Human round trip to Mars orbit. Phobos and Mars sample return for analysis in terrestrial laboratories.

“Key Mission Legacy: In-space portion of future Mars missions demonstrated. Ground ops and hardware processing. Deep-space crew operations. High-bandwidth communication. Planetary protection and sample analysis protocols. Some Phobos-unique challenges.”

A final article based on the Flexible Approach presentation will be published at the time of the first official announcement via NASA/the President.

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.

The Forward Path:

Only snippets of documented information have been noted on NASA communications so far this month, although an executive decision point – headed by President Obama – is believed to be just around the corner.

While transportation of crew to the International Space Station (ISS) requires direction – with the current plan to retire the shuttle fleet in 2010 or 2011, move to a reliance on the Russian Soyuz, until the US regains its own capability via either Ares I or a commercial launcher – the key to NASA’s future revolves around a heavy lift launch vehicle.

With Ares I’s chances of survival in serious doubt, its related Ares V heavy lifter also became the subject of whether to continue development, or change direction to one of several heavy lift alternatives – as was discussed at the Augustine Commission’s review into the future of NASA’s Human Space Flight program.

Space Shuttle Manager (SSP) John Shannon was tasked with setting up a team to evaluate the SD HLLV (Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle – or HLV for short) due to the commonality with the existing shuttle stack.

Regular updates in the twice weekly Shuttle Standup and Integration report noted good progress had been made in refining the sidemount design, as the evaluations moved into meetings with the Langley Research Center (LaRC) and NASA HQ in Washington, DC – ahead of key ‘face-to-face’ meetings with MSFC (Marshall Space Flight Center).

In tandem with the sidemount HLV evaluations, Mr Bolden directed a special team to evaluate all heavy lift alternatives, allowing the team to score each concept against each other on specific mission goals. It appears that those evaluations are now complete.

Very little has been heard from the SSP Sidemount HLV evaluations since the turn of the year, until this week, when the MOD’s (Mission Operations Directorate) Exploration Project Office made a reference to the Friday review with Mr Bolden, citing Ares project manager Jeff Hanley.

“HLV study summary from (Mr) Hanley – Sidemount doesn’t buy anything and takes hit on safety. A couple of versions of In-line going to Bolden on Friday,” noted the memo (L2), which was part of a MOD managerial overview of recent activity.

As to which In-line vehicles were being referenced, the only concepts that have received positive attention are variants of vehicles that are not unlike the appearance of an Ares V, one of which is understood to be a Jupiter-241 Stretched Heavy. No further mentions – other than in the NASA Flexible Path findings presentation – have been made to the monster 200mt Heavy Lifter.

Sources expanded on the vehicle that appears most favorable per evaluations, noting an In-line SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine) based vehicle, which has a Block-I configuration of 2x 4-seg SRB (Solid Rocket Booster – with 5th segment ‘spacer’), 8.4m Stretched Core powered by 4x SSME Block-II, an Upper Stage powered by a cluster of 4-6x RL-10A-4-3, and an EDS (Earth Departure Stage) optimized for LOR (Lunar Orbit Rendezvous).

The Block-II version of this vehicle would consist of 2x 5-seg SRB, 8.4m Stretched Core powered by four expendable SSMEs, with an Upper Stage powered by either a cluster of 4-6x RL-10A-4-3 or a single J-2X, and EDS optimized for LOR. The RL-10A-4-3 variant is based on the RL-10B-2 currently flying on Delta-IV, modified with a fixed nozzle extension, instead of the current extending one.

Until the actual vehicles are outlined in detail via official documentation – other than “In-line” – the specific configurations will remain unknown, and remain at the mercy of further evaluations – depending on Mr Bolden’s viewpoint after the Friday meeting.

However, further clues – all of which back up the SSME based Heavy Lifter being favored – have been forthcoming.

SSME decision for “future launch vehicle architecture”:

One such clue came during Thursday’s all-powerful Program Requirements Control Board (PRCB) meeting, where a proposal was put forward to delay the disposal of SSME assets, pending “future launch vehicle architecture” decisions.

The purpose of the PRCB presentation – available on L2 – was noted as “to obtain SSP and Agency concurrence to delay the disposal (Release Date, RLD) of SSME New Production (NP) Strategic Capabilities and Obsolete Configuration Flyable / Testable assets until June 1, 2010.”

While assumptions could be made the presentation relates to ether a shuttle extension, or a stretch of the manifest past the current retirement date with additional flights, sources note the relation to the SSME-based Heavy Lifter, as outlined above.

This is backed up by the presentation itself, which notes “Purpose: Supports future launch vehicle architecture pending Agency decision.”

Delaying the disposal of SSME assets requires SSP approval – with a January 20 decision date noted, although “SSME Obsolete Configuration line items consist of flyable / testable LRU’s, anomaly / engineering LRU’s, piece parts utilized in field replacements, flight / development GSE, installation tooling,” is not included in the delay, if this “property (is) no longer required to support SSP or future launch vehicle.”

The presentation also lists a series of four month slips associated with the retirement of assets – which would allow for breathing space as NASA finalize their decisions on the future launch vehicle architecture, whilst dedicating a page to the timescale it would require to actually replace/restart SSME production – citing one to two years.

“Recommendations: Delay disposal of New Production capability assets disposal until June 1, 2010. Minimize risks to on-going Launch Vehicle architecture considerations,” added the presentation, again making no mention of a shuttle extension in any part of the document.

“Delay disposal of SSME Assembly / Warehousing capability at SSC (Stennis Space Center) until Sept. 1, 2010. Agency decision eliminating need to retain these assets prior to June 1st.”

The irony remains that such a change of direction to a true Shuttle Derived vehicle would aid a shuttle extension. However, with an extension to 2015 all-but dead, the only viable approach would be a 2012 extension with around three additional flights – with the clock ticking down on even that viability.

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.

NASA’s Human Mission to a Near-Earth Object (NEO):

The journey to an asteroid was originally classed as a potential stop-gap option between the end of the ISS’ active role and the eventual return to the moon, homing NASA’s skills in relearning human space travel out of Low Earth Orbit (LEO).

However, the internal 65 page Flexible Path presentation – available on L2 – presented several possible directions NASA may take under the Augustine Commission’s Flexible Path option, including the outlining of a NEO mission in the mid-2020s, a full five to six years after the original target date to return to the moon, as outlined in the Vision of Space Exploration (VSE) – which is no longer seen as achievable.

As with the option of setting up a number of large telescopes in LEO, Geostationary Orbit (GEO) and at the LaGrange points, joint missions between robotic and human missions highlight the NEO approach.

In the opening statements, the NASA authors decided to make references to the threat such NEOs pose – along with the fact a large amount of NEOs remain undiscovered – as an emphasis on supporting of such a mission.

“The first asteroid discovered was Ceres in 1801 by Giuseppe Piazz. By 1900, hundreds of asteroids were known, including the first NEO – Eros (signified by the red dot) discovered in 1898 by Carl Gustav Witt,” opened the section on the potential NEO mission.

“By 1950, ~2,000 asteroids had been discovered, including a number of ‘Earth crossers’ or NEOs. By 1990, >9,000 objects had been identified throughout the inner solar system. Within the decade a total of 86,000 objects had been cataloged.

“Today, ~500,000 minor planets are known. Of that number, ~6600 are NEOs; of that number ~1100 are PHOs.”

PHOs – or Potentially Hazardous Objects – are classed as objects that come within 0.05 AU (7.5 million km) of the Earth. PHOs are in orbits that have the potential to make close approaches to the Earth and of a size large enough to cause significant regional damage in the event of an impact.

Further information on the number of NEOs and PHOs will be forthcoming via “Next Generation Surveys such as LSST & Pan-STARRS, along with current on-going surveys, (which) expect to find many more NEOs and PHOs. The next generation surveys includes: Tracking (for better orbit determination). Characterization (taxonomy, minerals, volatiles, etc.). NEO-WISE is expected to find a few hundred NEOs in the next year.”

Based on the NEOs of interest – ones which are potential targets for a sending an expedition to visit – NASA has estimated 39 are accessible “based on a flight system assumptions consistent with a single Ares V-class launch.”

These targets have been generated from a list of NEOs already identified as accessible by human missions lasting up to a year, along with the viable outbound transit time for typical robotic missions to the same targets – resulting in multiple opportunities for human missions, and multiple opportunities also for precursor robotic missions in earlier years.

The scenario that was chosen for the purpose of the proposal to visit a NEO, targets the NEO “1999 AO10″ – which holds three human launch opportunities in 2025, 2026 and 2032 – with three robotic precursor opportunities in 2019, 2020, or 2021.

“A robust example program can be constructed in which a human mission scheduled for launch in 2025 could withstand a one-year launch slip, while being preceded by a robotic reconnaissance precursor mission launched in 2019 that itself could withstand a one- or two-year launch slip,” added the presentation.

“In this ‘target rich’ mission space, NEOs afford diverse targets with many launch-year opportunities, varying mission durations, multiple opportunities to the same target, and multiple robotic precursor opportunities again to the same target.”

The Robotic Precursor Mission Scenario for 1999 AO10:

In NASA’s outline of the mission requirements, this target – and likely the case for other NEOs – would require the automated vehicle to arrive at the asteroid several years prior to the human expedition.

Such a robotic mission wouldn’t pose a problem for NASA engineers, who would follow a roadmap laid by the Hayabusa robotic mission, led by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) to return a sample of material from a small near-Earth asteroid named 25143 Itokawa.

Although not mentioned by name, one of the slides shows the robotic mission would be launched on either an Atlas V Heavy, and/or a Delta IV-Heavy, potentially in three modular stages, prior to rendezvous and docking in LEO ahead to the journey to the asteroid.

“Prior to sending a piloted mission to a NEO, additional characterization of the target is required. A typical robotic precursor would arrive at the designated NEO ~3 to 5 years prior to the corresponding human mission. This might be a Clementine/Hayabusa-class or Discovery class mission,” noted the presentation.

“Primary precursor mission instruments might include: high resolution optical camera system (surface identification, navigation, characterization, and mapping); LIDAR (topographical mapping, gravitational field survey, and shape modeling); visible and near-IR spectrometer (general compositional investigation); small lander/hopper (APXS, micrometeorite counter, dust collector, solar wind/particle collector, imager, radiometer, etc.)

“Mission objectives could include: Basic reconnaissance to assess potential hazards that may pose a risk to both vehicle and crew (as did Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, and Surveyor for Apollo), such as binary or ternary systems, rapid rotators, potentially active surfaces, etc.; and non-benign surface morphologies.

“Surface assessment for future activities to be conducted by human mission in order to maximize mission efficiency: proximity operations, surface operations, and sample collection. Preliminary determination of NEO target characteristics: surface morphology and properties (i.e., boulders vs. pebbles), gravitational field structure, rotation rate and pole orientation, mass/density estimates, general mineral composition.”

The robotic vehicle would also carry out the role of a guide and companion for the human mission, as depicted in a concept video (available on L2 – see slide) that shows Orion with the robotic vehicle in close attendance.

“Aid in the navigation of the piloted vehicle mission to the target NEO; provide additional data coverage during operations, obtain images of interactions of the crew and other assets at the NEO, supplemental examination of the NEO with additional sensors,” added the presentation on the role of the robotic vehicle prior, during and after the human mission.

“Monitor the NEO over time after crew and Orion vehicle depart; measure momentum transfer from kinetic/explosive experiment; image crater excavation processes/results (internal composition and structure); provide precise orbital measurements over a relatively long time period (e.g., better understand Yarkovsky and YORP effects).

“Relay data from science equipment left behind on the NEO by the crew: seismic stations, excavation/engineering equipment, resource extraction, etc.”

The Human Mission to 1999 A010:

For the scenario used by the Flexible Path presentation, a five to six month long duration flight is installed into the roadmap for the human expedition to the asteroid, and importantly is classed as a vital element of the overall mission – countering claims that robotics can carry out all the requirements of the mission on their own.

“A robotic precursor would have been conducted ~4 years prior to a human NEO mission. A typical piloted “sprint” mission would be ~155 days in duration,” continued the presentation.

“Instruments would include teleoperated rovers or hoppers (multiple trips to/from surface); multi-wavelength radar system (HGA could be used to perform radar tomography of the NEO to obtain internal structure); and small instrument packages for precision deployment by the crew during EVA or with a robotic rover system.

“The human crew would provide: adaptability and ingenuity to deal with complex issues in real time; direct interaction with the surface via a variety of methods; and wide-ranging E/PO activities including HD video of humans at another world.”

Again, the vehicles used in the presentation to transport the crew provides an interesting insight into NASA’s findings – following the Augustine Review – with no sign of Ares I being involved with the human transportation. Instead, a Human Rated Ares V is shown in the slide that illustrates the human launch element of the mission.

The mission scenario also provides further information of the roles for the crew once they arrive at the asteroid, noting a 14 day mission at the site, involving numerous EVAs to its surface.

“Mission objectives would include: Sample return: several macroscopic samples (10s to 100s of kg) from the surface, collected in geological context in different locations via multiple EVAs; supplemental robotic collection enhances sample return; collection of different or unusual samples from the surface (e.g., white rocks and black boulders on Itokawa),” added the presentation.

“Investigation of NEO interior characteristics; determination of internal structure (size scale and distribution of components); measurement of density and macroporosity of the NEO. Attachment of payloads to the surface for operation and subsequent retrieval. The NEO will have a microgravity regime, and possibly be a rubble pile with high porosity.

Roadmap from ISS to deep space experience:

The presentation continued by selling the viability of such a mission to a NEO, including references to the role the ISS could play in the planning stages, by utilizing the Station as a “first mission step” for a Deep Space Habitat simulation of the human missions.

“Exploration of NEOs can be decomposed into a series of logical steps that increment our knowledge of the object population, characterization of their diversity, in situ analysis via robotic missions, and culminate in human visits to one or more objects known by then to be worthy targets,” the presentation claimed.

“ISS utilization provides the first mission step, through which the NEO program would leverage existing ISSPO efforts in human health and performance, integrated system health management, advanced maintenance and servicing, and radiation shielding. ISS is a prime location to conduct an inhabited life test of the Deep Space Habitat.”

The NASA authors also make claims that these learning experiences would provide vital knowledge ahead of a Mars mission, which would follow a similar robotic to human roadmap.

“All human-mission NEO target candidates identified so far offer opportunities for robotic precursor visits while the human flight capabilities are being developed. Such early small-body investigations could include a NEO environment pathfinder, site characterization with sample science and sample return, and data collection to enhance NEO modeling.

“Next would come a human system precursor flight, which via vehicle system performance testing would demonstrate deepspace and autonomous operations, automated rendezvous and docking, high bandwidth communications, radiation hardened avionics, relevant-environment reliability, and other key capabilities. In a Flexible Path program, many of these needs could be demonstrated on human missions for other purposes.

“NASA would then be ready to mount one or more exploration missions to NEOs of interest, fully demonstrating Mars mission risk reductions like the Deep Space Habitat, deep space human-scale propulsion, and human/robot interaction in unplanned environments. The science yield would include the contextual macroscopic sample-collection, interior structure, and hazard deflection objectives described earlier.”

In conclusion, the NASA authors are positive such a NEO mission is possible and more so viable. Although no dollar amounts are mentioned, the presentation claims this option would be less expensive than either a moon or Mars mission.

“Apart from unique human-enabled science – including return of macroscopic samples and in situ conduct of subsurface active seismology – that could occur, human NEO missions offer two special benefits that support Flexible Path objectives:

“They have the ‘lowest price of entry’ of any human exploration missions to natural bodies. Trip times range from a few months up to Mars-class, and thus can drive development and qualification of long-lived, deep-space human systems and propulsion. Yet they do not require landers, ascent vehicles, or full-up roving mobility systems or surface infrastructure.

“The NEO population is huge, expected to continue growing as discovery continues, and diverse. Each of these objects is a small world to explore. The recent history of robotic exploration of small bodies implies asteroids and expended comets hold many surprises in store, assuring significant scientific interest and public attention.”

Part 4 of the Flexible Path Presentation articles will focus on NASA’s Mars and Phobos mission proposals, which have undergone a serious realignment following the Augustine Commission findings.

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

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.

Mr Hill Address:

The former flight director has made several addresses over the past year, mainly relating to the job losses that will hit the space program – not least with the United Space Alliance (USA) contractor workforce within the Mission Operations Directorate (MOD).

Some workers have already lost their jobs, but the main bulk of layoffs will occur over the next one year period under the current direction of closing down the shuttle program.

“It’s been a difficult year, with another difficult one in front of us. While we keep planning, training and flying these missions in the best MOD tradition, we are nearing the end of the Shuttle Program and have already started feeling the early effects of the SSP budget ramping down,” said Mr Hill in an memo to the MOD workforce, and acquired by L2.

“As I told you last summer, the tough times aren’t yet over as our budget will contract again going into October 2010. In spite of that, your technical work continues to be bullet proof and, in fact, you continue to find better ways of doing what we do. While not really surprising from MOD, it is truly impressive nonetheless.”

And MOD have been highly impressive, aiding the safe and successful completion of five flights in 2009, despite the uncertainty many of the workforce feel for the future – a future that still remains open-ended, following the Augustine Commission’s review in the Human Space Flight program.

“I hear rumblings that some of you are concerned that we are not telling you what we know about the future direction of human space flight, Shuttle, MOD, et al,” Mr Hill added. “While I’d agree we haven’t passed along much in the way of new plans in a few months, you can still trust that we will pass along whatever we know, when we know it.

“That means there isn’t any news to pass along regarding executive office direction on space policy and the ramifications to MOD.”

Mr Hill is highly respected in the space program, not least for his leadership skills, but also his ability to “say it how it is” – as was seen during a press conference when dealing with some repetitive questions from a BBC journalist during STS-114.

This openness was evident in the meat of his memo, where he openly admitted that NASA are looking at a commercial alternative launch vehicle and orbital vehicle for crew transport to the ISS.

“What do we know today? We have shuttle flights remaining in the manifest through next Fall. ISS will fly at least through 2015, potentially through 2020. Constellation is NASA’s exploration program of record and the basis for MOD’s exploration budget and the related operating plan.

“The agency is discussing the requirements to certify a commercial launch and orbit vehicle for NASA crews to fly in to ISS. That’s a far cry from contracting with anyone, but an obvious necessary step whenever the time comes.”

Mr Hill went further, by being willing to speculate on what he feels NASA may be directed by the President. Firstly, Mr Hill confirmed the evaluations into the addition of STS-135 into the flight manifest, but also eludes to the potential – if remote – opportunity to add “one or more” missions.

While it could be assumed Mr Hill is speaking of an extension scenario, he associates the additional flights with the stretching of the schedule to March 2011, which may be a suggestion NASA is evaluating the use of the extra funding – provided as a bufferzone for any slips relating to the scheduled five missions manifested to September of next year – by having missions ready to go if those five missions are all conducted with time to spare.

However, such a decision would need to be made sooner, rather than later, due to the associated hardware requirements of flights past STS-135, such as with the External Tanks and boosters.

“What else is going on, and what can we speculate on? The agency may add another Shuttle flight to the manifest (STS-135). There’s even some remote discussion about adding one or more beyond that. The timing could be through December 2010, March 2011, or who knows?” He noted.

Mr Hill also expanded on the fallout from the Augustine Commission review, again referencing the talks relating to a commercial “crew carrying” vehicle, whilst stating he hasn’t been fully briefed on where those evaluations are heading, and that the Constellation Program continues to be the Program of Record for now.

“There’s discussion at the Center Director level and above regarding top level mission options, essentially stimulated by the Augustine panel. This spans the gamut from the specifics in the Augustine panel report, to some clean sheet suggestions for human missions outside LEO.

“Talk continues regarding a commercial crew carrying vehicle. I wish I had a crystal ball to show you where that’s all going. The agency is (also) assessing heavy lift options.

“None of the previous bullets signals a decision to cancel any or all of the Constellation Program. They represent an effort to provide considered recommendations to the White House in the wake of the Augustine panel report. And that’s it.”

Mr Hill also promised he would inform his workforce of any new information he receives, when he receives it. For the meantime, MOD workers should remain focused on their roles.

“What we’re left with in the mean time is the same as this time last year. Trust the MOD leadership team to pass on whatever we know, when we know it. We are circling the wagons with the all MOD Branch Chiefs and above.

“One of our primary purposes will be to assess the various permutations these speculations could lead to in real space policy direction. More importantly, we will be discussing MOD management strategies to protect the technical expertise for which we are the national stewards, as well as to limit the impacts to our people, in any of those permutations.

“While things churn, keep being MOD and making us proud to be part of it with you. Challenge each other to be better technically and to live up to MOD’s ideals like the Foundations of Mission Operations. Don’t hesitate to challenge your management, all the way up the chain, to also be better and to keep listening for smart changes to our processes to keep MOD on the leading edge.

“Like you, I’d feel a lot better if I had something more definitive to pass along. In the mean time, it’s a great lot in life to be key players in the team that makes human spaceflight planning, training and operations happen every day. We’ll get MOD through this too.

“As long as we keep up the good fight, it is and will remain a great day to be MOD.”

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.

SD HLLV (HLV) Latest:

The Space Shuttle Program (SSP) is coming to the end of an evaluation phase on the “currently favored” Heavy Lift Vehicle (HLV) – otherwise known as the Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (SD HLLV), as they move into a consultation period with the Constellation Program (CxP).

The vehicle, side mounted to the current design of the External Tank, is a true Shuttle Derived concept, with heritage from a previous concept known as Shuttle-C. The concept is capable of launching 80mt (metric tons) into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and around 54mt to the moon.

Over the past couple of months, numerous status reports have been posted on the Shuttle Standup/Integration reports – which SSP use to bring the teams up to date on vehicle and program status. The vast majority of updates have been positive, as the well-oiled Shuttle teams took a deeper look into the concept at the request of the Augustine Commission.

The concept appeared to suffer from only one drawback – via the large mass its payload carrier – before that was cleared as part of the “no showstoppers” conclusion last month.

Following a presentation of their findings to Bill Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator of the Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD), the HLV concept has since been presented to the directors of both the Johnson Space Center (JSC) and MSFC (this week).

The latest update also noted that the concept is now in a dialog stage with the Constellation Program, with the aim of receiving feedback.

“Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) (NASA/JSC): HLV presented to the Center Director and had a good discussion. Got a bunch of questions and some actions,” noted this week’s opening Shuttle Standup/Integration report (L2).

“One action was to brief the Cx Program and other Centers about what they are doing. So, on Friday they presented to the Cx Program and had many questions from them. Starting to have a dialog.

“This week, HLV will go to MSFC to brief the Center Director. Have put out a preliminary draft of a HLV FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) document. Looking for feedback.”

HLV Special Team/Jupiter:

It was via an update on last week’s Standup report that the first mention was made relating to a “Special Team” that has been ordered to evaluate the other HLV alternative vehicles. With the SSP HLV team asked to support this MSFC-based effort, the standup noted this had become the top priority.

“HLV has been asked to support a special team looking at evaluating HLV alternatives,” noted the report. “The HLV Team is now treating this as a top priority. A report will be ready by Thanksgiving.”

Further inquires into the specific evaluations being carried out by the Special Team revealed that all viable – per the Augustine Commission’s initial options – HLV alternatives are being looked at “fairly”, with General Bolden himself responsible for ordering the report.

Sources note that the DIRECT team’s Jupiter launch system – an updated version of MSFC’s very own NLS (National Launch System) concept from the 1990s – has dominated early discussions at the Special Team meetings.

This runs parallels with the Augustine Commission, which presented the SD HLLV and Jupiter launch vehicle as the top two “Shuttle Derived” options during presentations over the last couple of months. Both of the SD options are also deemed as the best route to cater for the extension of the Shuttle Program.

Ironically, it was an earlier MSFC study which found “serious issues” with Jupiter’s performance and capabilities, whilst claiming the vehicles lacked the “operational safety and simplicity” of Ares. Those findings led to a 100 page rebuttal document being published by the DIRECT team.

The Special Team have also been asked to look into the CONOPs (Concept of Operations) for the HLV alternatives, although such an effort will be somewhat open-ended, as a final forward path for NASA’s exploration strategy is yet to be confirmed.

Waiting for the forward path:

With job losses already being suffered by the shuttle workforce, managers continue to send out updates to their employees on when NASA can expect to have a clear forward path, which – according to SSP manager John Shannon – is not expected until December at the earliest.

“The entire conversation – at the JSC Senior Staff Retreat – revolved around workforce requirements over the next few years. There are a great deal of rumors floating around, but little hard information,” noted Mr Shannon via the Standup report. “The week after Thanksgiving, the November Passback will be put out and this should clarify the near-term NASA budget.

“The Agency has demonstrated a strong commitment to exploration. SSP expertise will be tapped to support this goal. No decisions are being made at this time, as we await the budget information. Beginning in December and through the early part of next year, all of the stakeholders will convene to lay out the way forward.”

While Shuttle Extension remains on the cards – at least until the end of this year – as one of the options available to President Obama via the Augustine Commission’s findings, Mr Shannon has been consistent in not intimating the likelihood of any addition to the six remaining flights on the manifest.

“Everyone must remain calm and focused on the task at hand. We have six flights ahead of us, with this coming year likely to be very challenging and filled with complicated missions,” Mr Shannon added. “We must make sure that we continue to do everything to the best of our ability.

“After this is accomplished, we can turn our eyes back towards exploration. All future plans are keyed on operating the SSP correctly and safely performing its tasks over the coming year. (I have) absolute confidence in the Team being able to accomplish this work.”

Altair Defunded:

On the subject of exploration, the state of NASA’s plans continue to deteriorate, with sources noting they were informed on Monday that the Altair Lunar Lander project has been defunded. No official statement has been made at this time.

Very little has been heard from the Altair Program since heading into the opening development cycles (DACs) last year, which had been building from the Minimum Functionality Approach – as the relatively small team went about defining the lander concept.

The last cycle of the lander baseline, which was known simply as the ‘p711-b Lunar Lander’, had visible heritage in the ESAS (Exploration Systems Architecture Study) ’spider lander’. This concept was expected to change during downstream DACs – related to numerous elements, including the capabilities of the Ares V that was tasked to lift it into space.

With large scale funding shortages across the Constellation Program, and no realistic – from a monetary and schedule standpoint – lunar plans being built, the decision to end or mothball the Altair Program may be strategic, although it is likely they simply ran out of money.

With all of Constellation’s efforts being focused on the Ares I program – a vehicle that won’t be ready in time to launch to the ISS before it is currently scheduled to be deorbited and many years from playing a role in a Lunar mission – the need for increased funding is being made ever more apparent by decision makers at NASA, as the Agency continues to move towards a gap of up to seven years in human space flight capability.

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.

Background/Human Rating:

Several papers (see bottom of article for download link) - due to be presented at an upcoming American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)/Space 2009 conference – outline ULA’s ambitious plans to not only provide US manned access to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), but also create an exploration plan, one which includes fuel depots and lunar landing craft.

Addressing several key items that resulted in the EELV family missing out as the preferred architecture during the creation of the ESAS (Exploration Systems Architecture Study), the papers claim the EELV systems hold compliance to Human Rating requirements defined by NASA Standard, boosted by a flight rate that quickly builds sufficient history to rely on flight demonstrated reliability.

“NASA embraced these designs by selecting the Atlas V and Delta IV to launch the crewed Orbital Space Plane (OSP) due to their robust, flexible designs, the reliability (calculated and demonstrated) and the confidence in these launch vehicles resulting from their evolutionary development approach, which minimized the historical first flight risk,” opens one of the papers.

“These systems offer the key to significantly reducing the Gap in US Human Spaceflight by providing flight proven launch systems that offer the benefits of early Initial Launch Capability (ILC), lowest nonrecurring and recurring costs, and demonstrated reliability that meets or exceeds NASA Loss of Mission requirements.

“With the addition of a robust launch abort system, we believe both Atlas and Delta can exceed stringent NASA Loss of Crew requirements. Both launch vehicles offer unique advantages for a commercial crew development program, or for the launch of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle.”

Playing to the key strength of flight history, the paper emphasizes the key difference between the current forward plan of Ares, and its Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle alternatives.

“Existing launch vehicles offer a number of benefits, most notably the demonstrated reliability offered by continuing uncrewed launches during on-going operations,” the paper continues. “This is evident in the significant reduction in the historical infant mortality rate of new launch vehicles. Design flaws manifest themselves in early flights, which is minimized by the evolutionary design approach demonstrated by Atlas and Delta.

“This means that with a common fleet of launch vehicles, the uncrewed missions bear the first flight risk, thus significantly reducing the risk for crewed missions.

“This illustrates the demonstrated reliability benefits of a common fleet of launch vehicles. Additionally, by 2015, the current Ares/Orion ILC, Delta IV will have flown over 50 Common Booster Cores, including 8 Delta IV-Heavy vehicles. Atlas V will have flown nearly 65 times.”

Citing the basis of their confidence on safety, the paper expands on the three primary factors of Human Rating a vehicle – specifically launch vehicle reliability, the addition of an Emergency Detection System, and intact abort capability.

“The combination of these three elements provides a common-sense, system-level approach to accomplish the goal of safe, reliable transportation to LEO.”

For EELV HR references:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/04/study-eelv-capable-orion-role-griffin-claims-alternatives-fiction/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2007/01/human-rated-atlas-v-for-bigelow-space-station-details-emerge/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2007/04/spacedev-announce-dream-chaser-agreement-with-ula-atlas-v/

Gap Reduction:

Currently, Orion won’t be launched on its debut flight (IOC – Initial Operating Capability) via Ares I until March, 2015 – at the very earliest, due to a low confidence level. Another year will pass before Orion 4′s (FOC – Full Operating Capability) flight to the International Space Station (ISS).

This “gap” between the previously scheduled 2010 retirement of the shuttle and Orion’s working schedule is one of the key concerns facing NASA, and indeed at the Augustine Committee’s review into the future of the US’ Human Space Flight plans.

An argument often made relates to changing course after several years of Ares development and several billion dollars of expenditure. More so, it has been argued that moving to a different launch vehicle architecture now would actually increase the gap between the shutte’s retirement – now likely in 2011 – and the operational capability of its successor.

ULA counter this, claiming they have a proven history of being able to refine their family of vehicles for manned flight in a timescale that would result in Atlas V being ready to launch Orion in less than four years.

“Atlas and Delta have a long history of successful launch vehicle development and launch pad activation. ULA has built on that experience by developing a detailed plan and schedule to provide crew launch services for NASA and commercial providers. Based on our understanding of the requirements, we believe that that an Atlas V can be ready for commercial Human Spaceflight in less than 4 years and that the Delta IV-Heavy can be ready to launch Orion in 4-1/2 years.

“These schedules are consistent with the US experience during the Mercury-Atlas and Gemini-Titan Program experience, both of which flew the first manned mission within 4 years of the selection of the launch vehicle.”

Outlining the elements of their current ground and launch systems for the purpose of conforming to the Human Rating requirements, the paper cites the need for modifications to be carried out at the launch site, plus redundancy/safety upgrades, and the inclusion of an Emergency Detection System (EDS).

“We anticipate that this system will be similar for either Atlas or Delta, and will use the recent Atlas V Fault Tolerant Inertial Navigation Unit (FTINU) as the point of departure for design and development,” the paper added on the specific note on the EDS.

“The FTINU was developed in less than 3 years and was launched on an Atlas 551 for the NASA Pluto New Horizon mission in 2006. With EELV vehicle subsystem highly characterized, and with added flights-of-opportunity to check out the EDS (without its LAS) EELV has lowered schedule, technical, and cost risk for EDS development.”

All of which factors in to the EELV’s Loss of Mission (LOM)/Loss of Crew (LOC) ratings, which range from the Atlas V 401′s rating of 1/250 for a LOM and 1/2500 for LOC, to the Delta IV-Heavy’s 1/80 LOM and 1/800 for LOC, although the table notes that all the values represent 50 percent confidence level – in part due to Delta IV’s lack of flights.

“System reliability was one of the most important design considerations for the EELV systems, Atlas V and Delta IV. It was one of only four critical performance parameters specified by the Operational Requirements Document (ORD),” added the paper on the LOM and LOC values. “As such, a tremendous amount of effort was expended to develop credible reliability estimates to prove that the requirements were met.

“Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) type analysis was used to determine so-called design reliability. But mission reliability, what the program called the true reliability, was calculated by applying a Bayesian update to incorporate actual flight experience of similar systems or subsystems.

“This approach was arrived at through lengthy technical interchanges between the EELV contractors and the Aerospace Corporation, representing the Air Force customer. The results of the analysis (are based) with the associated LOC numbers assuming the probability of a failed abort is 1/10.”

For CxP Gap References:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/news/constellation/

Atlas V vs Delta IV Human Rating:

With the paper continuing by citing the attributes of both the Atlas V and Delta IVs on preference for which vehicle would be best to Human Rate.

Atlas V has numerous benefits, not least due to the minimal modifications the vehicle would require to launch humans into space, with only ground support and the addition of a EDS required.

“The Atlas V 401 and 402 vehicles are well suited for commercial human spaceflight. They are simple, low cost, reliable systems with a long successful heritage. They use two flight proven propulsion systems (RD-180 & RL-10), with only two engine starts, and two separation events.

“They have benign, well characterized environments, robust margins, and high demonstrated reliability (100% for the 401) and design reliability (.9960 for the 401 and .9942 for a 402). Atlas 401 and 402 can provide up to approximately 27,500lbs of performance to LEO, depending on the specific configuration of the crew vehicle.

“Trajectories can easily be shaped to eliminate ‘Black Zones’ with no appreciable impact to performance. (‘Black Zones’ are defined as any period of flight when an abort would result in unsafe landing conditions if: 1) the aborting capsule falls into hostile terrain; or 2) High-g loads occur during a reentry.

“Atlas V can accommodate commercial human spaceflight with no changes to the existing vehicles. The only enhancements will be the addition of the Emergency Detection System and changes to the Mobile Launch Platform to allow crew ingress and egress. Once a particular crew vehicle is selected, Atlas V will conduct a series of analyses and system testing to integrate vehicle on a 401 or 402. These include Hazard Analyses, Design Margin Analyses and Mission Unique Analyses specific for the Crew vehicle configuration.

“In addition, we may conduct wind tunnel tests and subsequent aerodynamics and loads analyses to ensure that we maintain our existing vehicle margins. The Atlas V 4XX offers the lowest risk, lowest cost solution for commercial crew.

“The demonstrated reliability record and robust vehicle design allows Atlas the flexibility to meet the needs of a variety of commercial crew vehicles currently being contemplated and designed.”

Delta IV-H wins on performance, with over 4 metric ton of margin for both ISS and Lunar Orion delivery, even after taking into account the elimination of black zones – often cited by Constellation as one of EELV’s main flaws in being able to Human Rate.

“The Delta IV has ample performance margin. For the ISS crew mission, based on current Orion weight allocations, the Delta IV Heavy has 4.8t of margin for lifting the Orion capsule to the ISS delivery orbit. This drops to 4.3t of margin for the Lunar Crew delivery mission. These 20 percent margins are very healthy, especially given that Orion would be flying on a demonstrated launch vehicle.

“These margins are after depressing the trajectories to close all Black Zones. (Performance margins would have been ~1t higher if this had not been done.) These performance margins are so big that they can cover almost any conceivable human rating penalty, or combination of penalties, including a 1.40 safety factor, and significant RL-10 derating.

“NASA has now acknowledged that they believe that the Delta IV Heavy has adequate performance margin and no Black Zones. This should refocus any questions about EELV compatibility onto human rating, reliability, and schedule.

“The human rated Delta IV Heavy fundamentally is the same Delta IV vehicle that has flown successfully three times, and is expected to fly 10 times by the projected mid 2014 IOC date. (32 total Delta IV CBC booster elements are projected to have flown by this same date.). This is a huge benefit from a crew safety standpoint.

“Though there are many measures of reliability, demonstrated reliability is the least subjective measure. Even with an analytic reliability which is higher, the EELVs cumulative launch total before the 2014 IOC, and additional accumulation of launches including DoD, means that the Ares 1 or another new vehicle might effectively never catch up with Delta’s demonstrated reliability.”

However, more work is required on this vehicle when it comes to modifications in order to provide the necessary Human Rating safety additions – which would also need to satisfy the Delta IV’s main customer at present, the Department Of Defense (DOD).

“Delta IV vehicle changes include removal of the fairing, and replacement with the Orion System, including service module and launch abort system and adapters. The Emergency Detection System will be incorporated into the launcher. An array of relatively small redundancy and safety modifications have been identified based on NASA requirements, but these remain modest in scope compared to the legacy design.

“We anticipate these upgrades to be acceptable to the DoD customers, and expect these to be incorporated fleetwide with no need for a unique NASA vehicle design apart from the EDS kit. Currently 1.40 safety factor has been removed from NASA requirements, though a return to this requirement driving some regauging and requalification could be accommodated within the same proposed schedule.”

Numerous upgrades and modifications are listed, but also with cited uncertainty as to how many of the modifications would be required.

“The details of redundancy upgrades on Delta remain an area of interest. Of note is that quite a few of the requirements are not driven by explicit redundancy requirements, but on other anticipated safety criteria as the desire to reduce the release of burning H2 at RS-68 start,” added the paper.

“Also, in some cases different redundancy upgrades (RS-68 backup valves, feedline prevalves, and hydraulics redundancy) need to be traded off to find the smartest implementation path. This makes the final suite of upgrades somewhat uncertain. However, the anticipated total scope and cost of these safety upgrades is programmatically small, with engine mods the most expensive due to high intrinsic recertification cost.

“Generally speaking, schedule impacts on IOC (effecting the US human spaceflight “gap”) is a more significant consideration.”

One interesting line near the end of the “Atlas and Delta Capabilities to Launch Crew to Low Earth Orbit” paper is a reference to both vehicles being used to launch humans into space.

“Though we assume Orion on Delta IV, and commercial crew capsules on Atlas, the difference in human rating is intrinsic to the launch vehicles, and not to assumed differences in human rating requirements.”

In summary, the “winner” of becoming a Human Rated launcher between the Atlas V and the Delta IV comes down to a question of schedule, risk numbers and performance.

“The EELVs are ready to support crew lift with flight proven vehicles that will have an even longer legacy of flights by the crewed IOC date with superior demonstrated reliability compared to any new system. Our schedules are grounded by ULA’s unmatched legacy of vehicle development and modifications programs and launch pad developments,” the paper summarizes.

“The Atlas V, with the relatively minor addition of an Emergency Detection System and a dedicated NASA Vertical Integration Facility (VIF) and Mobile Launch Platform (MLP), is ready for commercial human spaceflight and complies with NASA human rating standards. The 3 1/2 year integration span is likely shorter than the development for any new commercial capsule that might fly on it.

“The Delta IV has ample performance to support the existing Orion vehicle, without Black Zones. The Delta IV can support a mid-2014 Crewed IOC, which is superior to Orion launch alternatives. The proposed 37A pad is a look-alike counterpart to the existing 37B pad with low development risk.

“Human rating the Delta is a relatively modest activity, with the addition of an Emergency Detection System, an array of relatively small redundancy and safety upgrades, both in the vehicle and the engines that are minor compared to the original development of the Delta IV.”

An architecture complimented by fuel depots:

ULA are proposing a change of direction that is unmatched by the other alternative architectures, combining the use of vehicles that are already flying, with an on orbit ability to refuel in space via fuel depots.

As a result, one of the greatest challenges vehicles face – the need to launch with all the propellant they intend to use on orbit – can be staged in space.

“The present ESAS architecture for lunar exploration is dependent on a large launcher. It has been assumed that either the ARES V or something similar, such as the proposed Jupiter ‘Direct’ lifters are mandatory for serious lunar exploration,” another associated paper opened.

“These launch vehicles require extensive development with costs ranging into the tens of billions of dollars and with first flight likely most of a decade away. In the end they will mimic the Saturn V programmatically: a single-purpose lifter with a single user who must bear all costs. This programmatic structure has not been shown to be effective in the long term. It is characterized by low demonstrated reliability, ballooning costs and a glacial pace of improvements.

“The use of smaller, commercial launchers coupled with orbital depots eliminates the need for a large launch vehicle. Much is made of the need for more launches – this is perceived as a detriment. However since 75 percent of all the mass lifted to low earth orbit is merely propellant with no intrinsic value it represents the optimal cargo for low-cost, strictly commercial launch operations.

“These commercial launch vehicles, lifting a simple payload to a repeatable location, can be operated on regular, predictable schedules. Relieved of the burden of hauling propellants, the mass of the Altair and Orion vehicles for a lunar mission is very small and can also be easily carried on existing launch vehicles. This strategy leads to high infrastructure utilization, economic production rates, high demonstrated reliability and the lowest possible costs.

“This architecture encourages the exploration of the moon to be conducted not in single, disconnected missions, but in a continuous process which builds orbital and surface resources year by year. The architecture and vehicles themselves are directly applicable to Near Earth Object and Mars exploration and the establishment of a functioning depot at earth-moon L2 provides a gateway for future high-mass spacecraft venturing to the rest of the solar system.”

ULA provide a “Proposed Architecture Concept of Operations” in the paper, which shows a logistics stream and a crew stream feeding off depots, including one at L2 (Lagrange point). However, the paper notes that “the architecture is illustrated using ULA vehicle concepts for convenience. In reality, no single industrial entity can entirely support this architecture.

“The production and launch rates are simply not sustainable by a single team. It must be a concerted effort of several launch providers, perhaps a consortium linking industry and NASA.”

The backbone of the architecture is the ACES (Advanced Common Evolved Stage), which is currently being developed by ULA, and expected to replace the three existing cryogenic upper stages presently being used.

“Containing 41 mT of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen it is powered by four RL10 class engines. ACES builds on over 200 flights of Centaur and Delta, fusing technologies from both programs: sharing the Delta IV 200” tank diameter but with a common/nested intermediate bulkhead. ACES uses tank geometry, low conductivity tank structures, passive thermal protection and vapor cooling to suppress cryogenic propellant loss to boiloff,” noted the paper.

“Since it is wholly protected from aeroloads during launch a thick MLI blanket surrounds every exposed surface – drastically reducing external heating. ACES has no helium or hydrazine systems- all pressurization, attitude control and power is generated by consuming its two main propellants. Most importantly ACES is designed to be refilled with propellants once in space.”

The 41 mT ACES propellant capacity is sized for usage with DoD, NASA science and commercial payloads. Because ACES sub-systems are concentrated on an aft mounted equipment deck the propellant capacity can be readily modified through changes in tank side wall length.

However, thanks to the use of propellant depots lunar exploration can efficiently be accommodated with as few as two tank volumes, the basic 41 mT. ULA provide an outline of Orion riding with ACES, Altair with ACES and the ACES tanker.

“In the Orion Service Module configuration, an ACES 41 is mated to an ECLSS module and the Orion Command Module. ACES provides its own power and that for Orion by consuming its ullage gases. Solar arrays and dedicated radiators are unneeded – ACES provides these services,” the paper adds.

“Attitude control is provided by ACES working in concert with the Orion RCS (Reaction Control System). The Orion-peculiar services such as N2 replenish , CO2 scrubbing and voice communications are provided by the ECLSS module.

“In the Altair configuration, ACES 41 is mated to a Lunar Cargo Module or the Crew Ascender as well as multiple 1,000 pound thrust lateral-facing engines and landing gear for the final hover and landing phases.

“In its simplest and most common configuration the ACES tanks are stretched so that they contain 71 tons of propellants. This ACES 71 vehicle has no payload attached and uses the very simplest of payload fairings. Its principle purpose is to deposit or remove propellants from a depot. The ACES tanker is capable of supporting propellants that are subcooled.

“Subcooling of the LH2 and LO2 allows propellants to absorb heat while stored in LEO without saturation pressures rising excessively. This permits extended storage times in high heating conditions without suffering excessive mass losses.”

The result of this multi-use of the ACES system is the ability to create the fuel depots in space, which is an idea that was heavily supported by the Augustine Review panel.

“The ACES depot is an ACES 41 mated to a modified ACES 71 Tanker. The tanker has a shifted intermediate bulkhead to maximize LH2 storage. The main engines have been removed and a high performance deployable sunshield installed. The LH2 storage element is launched empty as a payload on an Atlas 554 or Delta IV HLV,” the paper continues.

“Because it is not filled with cryogenic propellants on the ground it can dispense with external conductive insulation such as foam. Its thermal protection is strictly optimized for vacuum operations. The depot provides the multiple interfaces for transferring propellants to and from the docked vehicles and can supply power and support services to those vehicles for extended periods.

“Multiple Orion, Altair and tanker vehicles can be simultaneously docked. The proposed architecture relies on two depots – one in LEO and the other at L2.

“Being an empty shell the depot is extremely light, weighing approximately 12 mT. Launched on a Delta HLV results in nearly 20t of residual propellant remaining in the ACES 41 upper stage. Once in LEO, the ACES-41 residual LH2 is transferred into the LH2 depot tank. The ACES-41 LO2 residuals are then transferred to the now empty ACES-41 LH2 tank, after the tank has been evacuated of any residual H2.”

Other solutions are noted, such as a passive Thermal Protection System (TPS) for the depot in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), to protect against propellant boiloff, whereas the far lower heating rate for the depot at L2 can establish near-zero boiloff losses – amounting to a few pounds per day which also nearly matches the minimal station keeping requirements at the quasi stable L2.

A dedicated paper further outlines the depot plan, and available options for alternative paths.

Lunar Exploration:

With the combination of the EELV heavy lift options and the fuel depots en route, the proposed path to returning to the moon involves the ACES/Altair duo being launched on a Delta IV HLV booster with ACES/Altair replacing the Delta IV upper stage providing a total LEO lift mass of 36t.

“Refueled from the LEO depot the ACES/Altair can deliver in excess of 30 tons of combined cargo and vehicle mass to L2,” notes the paper. “Generally however it arrives at L2 with substantial propellant residual. If the Altair is intended to be cached at L2 for future crew use it deposits its propellants into the depot for efficient long term storage.”

The result of using depots at LEO and L2 would allow for 20mt and a crew of four astronauts to be landed on the lunar surface.

“The ACES/Altair is loaded or topped from the L2 depot just prior to lunar descent. This includes the loading of the Ascender propellant tanks which are used during the terminal hover/landing phase. Fully loaded, it can deliver a combined mass of vehicles (such as the ascender), cargo and unused propellants greater than 40t to the lunar surface.

“The ACES tanks on the landed descenders are used for cryogenic propellant storage on the lunar surface and just as at L2 they gradually build their stores. The cycle of power generation would be established with fuel cells active during the lunar night and solar systems during the day. The conversion of water to the reactants and back in rhythm with the lunar day would be established.

“The support of a substantial crew on the lunar surface requires the storage, handling and transport of industrial quantities of reactants, water, sewage, nitrogen, scrubbed CO2, etc. The landed descenders each have substantial capacity to support the storage and processing of these materials and with each landing the ACES tanks are added to this lunar base tank farm.

“The ability to close the local ecosystem would gradually increase with a subsequent reduction in lost mass. Transfer of fluids between tanks is enabled by the ability to move the ACES/Altair after landing. It can be driven or towed to be adjacent to other landed vehicles so their systems can be joined.”

The paper outlines each of the paths required to launch the crew, pass them through the depots – including transportation to L2 – to the lunar surface and subsequent return to Earth. It also provides a roadmap for the move to the ACES system.

“ACES first flight would occur with either a commercial or DoD payload nearly five years before the first crewed flight to the moon. The final six crew flights to ISS would be conducted using ACES and the Orion capsule. To demonstrate the lunar lander as quickly as possible a robotic lander mission is included in 2016 with a direct lunar descent.

“Initial crewed landing would occur in 2018. Either a single crewed mission per year coupled with 20mT of cargo or two crewed missions per year can be supported within the anticipated budgets. The assumed cost of transport to LEO ranged from 9.2 to 10.2 $M/mT depending on launch vehicle. This scenario also assumes the cost of flights to the ISS are included at a rate of 2/year commencing in 2013.”

Expanding on costs, one graph lays out the funding requirements for as far downstream as 2024.

Four to five billion a year would cover the costs of development and operation through to 2017 – which includes lunar systems (which the current Constellation Program has been struggling to find monies for) – before rising to seven billion per year from 2020 to 2024.

Lunar Lander – DTAL:

At the center of the lunar landing plan is the DTAL – or Dual Thrust Axis Lander. The vehicle – which lands horizontally, uses an RL10 engine to accomplish the descent deceleration to just above the lunar surface. Final landing is accomplished using thrusters mounted along the DTAL body. ULA claim this configuration places the crew and payloads safely and conveniently close to the lunar surface.

“ULA’s Centaur and Delta IV upper stages provide an excellent cryogenic propulsion framework for developing a reliable, mass efficient lunar lander.

“Initial DTAL-enabled large robotic missions allow NASA to return to the moon quickly and demonstrate hardware to be used by crews that follow. This same mission design supports placement of large lunar base elements (habitats, power plants, rovers, excavation equipment, etc),” the paper on the DTAL notes.

“As the uncrewed missions are completed, and the system matures, astronauts will then use the same, now proven system to access the lunar surface.

“The reliable DTAL propulsion stage provides the flexibility to visit destinations other than the moon. DTAL’s mass and thermal efficient design provides the capability to visit NEO’s or possibly even Mars. By supplying the life support consumables with O2 and H2 from the large primary propellant tanks long duration missions are possible.”

The DTAL looks completely different to the current Altair design that NASA are working on – although the Constellation Program have noted Altair is likely to change in design as it matures. Interestingly, it’s that very design of Altair that reduces crew safety during their expeditions on to the lunar surface.

“Even with the multi-tank, imbedded engine design, Altair results in the crew and cargo being over 6 m above the lunar surface. This configuration results in increased risks to the crew who must regularly access the lunar surface from the equivalent of a three story building.

“There is the potential added risk of the crew being required to work under suspended loads during cargo off-loading. For the dedicated cargo missions, the Altair design requires dedicated cranes or a building sized ATHLETE, JPL’s lunar rover, to support habitat and other large cargo transfer to the lunar surface.”

The horizontal design of the DTAL places the crew near the surface, with the descent engines mounted on the side – as opposed to the bottom – of the vehicle. Design images even show wheels on the bottom of the DTAL.

“The Dual Thrust Axis Lander (DTAL) provides another solution that addresses the conflicting requirements of descent and landing while keeping the lander intact all the way to the surface. Like the DASH concept (from the Langley Flight Research Center), DTAL utilizes efficient LO2/LH2 propulsion for descent, but transitions to small engines mounted along the stage allowing horizontal landing.

“The use of high side-mounted thrusters for terminal descent and landing provides the pilot with a clear view of the surface, unobscured by entrained regolith, easing DTAL’s ability to adjust touchdown to ground terrain.

“DTAL uses the RL10 to perform most of the descent burn and then rotates until its long axis is parallel to the ground. At about 6,000 feet above the lunar surface DTAL transitions to the lateral thrusters, turning off the RL10. The lateral thrusters, which are aligned perpendicular from the RL10, support the final descent and terminal landing.

“The small, responsive lateral thrusters allow precision control of the descent and translation rates. DTAL will build on ULA’s existing propellant slosh – vehicle dynamic control logic experience to ensure that induced slosh does not adversely couple with flight control system.”

The variants of the DTALs are based around crewed and robotic missions. Initially, robotic missions (DTAL-R) would be launched, allowing for precursor flights and the ability to prove reliability.

“Commonality between DTAL-Crew, DTAL-R and ACES provide a large number of flights prior to the first crew mission will ensuring that the propulsion system design is sound,” the paper added.

“Exploration of the moon benefits from combining robotic and crewed missions. Exploratory robotic science missions provide the early, initial inspection of new locations, and enable investigation of a greater number of locations than would otherwise be possible.

“Subsequent larger robotic missions enable much deeper understanding and prepare for larger cargo missions deploying habitats, rovers, power systems and other elements required to support human life beyond Earth. Once people are habitually living and working on the moon, robotic cargo missions will provide the supply chain to support their daily needs.”

The proposed DTAL-R lander would be utilized for the “larger” missions, capable of landing over 15 mT of payload depending on exploration architecture. DTAL-R provides the lunar surface access for large, oversized payloads that would be required for setting up a lunar outpost – another casualty of the current Constellation funding issues that was identified by the Augustine Review.

See here for NASA’s Altair Lander:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/02/altair-project-buying-into-orion-lessons-for-development-process/

This is where the widely spaced landing gear comes into play, providing DTAL with stability even on rough or uneven terrain. This horizontal configuration results in the cargo-hold resting just a meter above the lunar surface, providing surface obstacle clearance for all proposed landing sites.

“Multiple 3m long rovers could disembark from DTAL-Rs cavernous 5m diameter cargo hold. DTAL-R’s 5 m cargo hold and lunar performance are capable of supporting all of NASA’s planned lunar surface systems, including hard shell and inflatable habitats, crewed rovers, ATHLETE, in-situ resource plants, lunar telescopes, or large drilling rigs. Egress is a simple matter of descending a shallow ramp to the surface.”

This increased ability to place large payloads on the lunar surface supports the most ambitious lunar base plans NASA has previously spoken of.

“DTAL-R can support NASA’s most massive current lunar surface system (LSS) elements including the 9.6 mT Fission Surface Power System (FSPS),” the paper claims. “NASA’s current plan calls for the surface elements to be launched horizontally on Altair’s large diameter deck inside a 10 m shroud.

“With DTAL-R, most of these elements would be launched axially and land horizontally on the lunar surface for easy egress. DTAL’s slim 5 m diameter design is compatible with existing EELV payload fairings as well as side-mounted and in-line shuttle derived launch vehicles.

“At this early stage in the surface element designs, potential design modifications for vertical launch are not anticipated to be challenging. The Lunar Electric Rover (formerly the Small Pressurized Rover) with its 5m length is an example of a system that would have to be packaged vertically on DTAL-R, similar to the rovers.

“JPL’s ATHLETE can be folded for flight and stowed in whatever orientation is most convenient for packaging with other LSS elements.

“The heaviest pressurized habitat module is currently estimated to be just under 8 mT. DTAL-R’s performance capability allows NASA to grow the habitats capability, or co-manifest habitats with other LSS elements. For human presence beyond Earth to be sustainable, we must eventually learn to ‘live off the land’.

“In-Situ-Resource-Utilization (ISRU) takes advantage of local material to derive useful products. Oxygen production from lunar regolith may well be one of the first ISRU steps toward a sustainable human presence.”

Again, safety and reliability are referenced in the paper, citing the four RL10 engine configuration that ensures that the vehicle will survive and continue the mission even with multiple engine failures. The paper also claims the DTAL (Crew) ascent module “is placed far forward with a clean, unencumbered separation plane allowing for full flight abort capability.

“The clean separation plane and gimbaled lateral thrusters ensure that the ascent module can separate from the descent vehicle even under severe spin conditions and through all phases of descent.”

Also, the pilots are placed at the front of the DTAL, allowing them a downward facing, panoramic window viewpoint for a clear view of the landing terrain. The high mounted distributed lateral thrusters also minimize surface dust entrainment, maximizing pilot visibility throughout the descent and landing.

Departing from the surface of the moon involves the DTAL’s “Ascender” – which separates from the front of the DTAL, rising back up into the lunar orbit.

“To return to lunar orbit after the surface mission the Ascender propellant tanks are brought to pressure. With the Descender stage systems stowed and umbilicals retracted the Ascender thrusters are brought to 30 percent power to achieve positive upload at the Descender/Ascender separation interface. Commanding separation, the Ascender then ramps up thrust, departing the lunar surface and descent vehicle at a steep angle.

“With this benign separation orientation the Ascender does not directly blast the spent descent stage with its engine plume allowing the descent stage to be preserved without damage for potential future use.”

Future use is also central to an option of creating habitable volume from the DTAL’s LH2 tank, in additional to the volume already allocated at the forward section of the craft.

“Converting DTAL’s tank for living space once on the lunar surface offers a mass ‘free’ habitat: This very large volume compares very favorably to habitable volumes provided by ISS, Altair, Orion, proposed lunar habitat volumes, LaRC’s proposed DASH lander or even Bigelow’s planned Sun Dancer module.

“The conversion of the LH2 tank support crew quarters provides an attractive option for the start or addition to a lunar base.

“The forward, ‘payload’ habitat node includes the entire infrastructure to support people, environmental control and life support system (ECLSS), bathrooms, showers, galley, etc. fully integrated on Earth. A tunnel leading aft to the DTAL LH2 tank would open up a lot of extra habitable volume once on the lunar surface.

“Prior to opening the node-tank connecting tunnel, the H2 tank would be vented to evacuate any residual H2 and allowed to warm up to room temperature and filled with air.”

The associated papers are being published on ULA’s site here:
 http://www.ulalaunch.com/index_published.html

No related posts.