The Final Effort To Save Shuttle:

It was an emotional final three flights of the shuttle fleet, with the beginning of the end marked by Commander Steve Lindsey’s “Get ready to witness the majesty and the power of Discovery as she lifts off one final time” speech over the flight loop moments before the start of STS-133′s mission, with the flying days ended by Commander Chris Ferguson’s personal tribute to the fleet after Atlantis’ wheels stop, thanking them for protecting the crews.

As millions watched these final flights launch and land, each time marked by the emotional sound of the orbiter’s Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) being extinguished of life for the final time, the public started to realize the United States – and indeed the world – was losing the most capable space vehicle ever built.

While NASA went into a public relations overdrive to try and emphasize that America’s loss of its domestic crewed launch capability was only going to be for several years, political and public disappointment that NASA funding would be spent on buying taxi rides on Russian Soyuz vehicles to an International Space Station (ISS) mainly constructed and paid for by the United States, was main concern.

Eventually, commercial crew capsules, such as SpaceX’s Dragon will be able to ferry astronauts to the ISS, but not until after the middle of this decade. Even under the current best case scenario for commercial crew and cargo, a return to the full capability enjoyed by the shuttle will never be regained via the current commercial suitors.

However, behind the scenes, details of a major proposal were revealed to NASASpaceflight, pointing to what was the last – but by far the most comprehensive – attempt to return the Shuttle to flight operations.

The plan – held under an agreed embargo by this site’s editor, so as not to damage negotiations – involved billions of dollars of private investment being pumped back into shuttle operations, saving Atlantis and Endeavour to return to flight operations no earlier than the end of 2014.

Even before Atlantis had landed for the final time, opponents to shuttle extension were citing the problem of key contractors shutting down, all based around President Bush’s decision to retire the fleet following the completion of ISS assembly. This challenge would have been partially mitigated by potential changes to the contracts and mechanisms used by NASA during the Space Shuttle Program (SSP).

“One of the advantages of our purely commercial approach is that it allowed our engineers to consider alternative suppliers and advances in manufacturing, materials, processing, and production across the globe and across several industries,” noted Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar, who helped lead strategic development and served as the primary government and industry liaison for the team designing the restart plan.

“Our objective was to benefit the Commercial Shuttle venture by implementing best of breed systems engineering and risk assessment and maintaining a focus on shortening the post-flight-to-flight processing cycle while upholding safety as the prime consideration.”

While Discovery was officially removed from flight status during the evaluations, along with the Shuttle Program being handed over to Transition and Retirement (T&R) operations, Endeavour and Atlantis remained in a flow which did not technically preclude a stay of execution.

It was also these two orbiters which were the focal point of all recent “extension” studies (L2 Link to documentation), ranging back to the Augustine Commission into the future of Human Space Flight (HSF) and continued through to the United Space Alliance’s interest in commercial operations of the orbiters via NASA’s Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) awards.

The United Space Alliance (USA) also submitted a proposal this year (L2 Link), one which called for funding of a study to finalize the architecture for a Commercial Shuttle Transportation Service (CSTS). But that proposal did not go forward.

By way of removing one of the major barriers to previous commercial proposals – government funding – members of the new team allied with potential investors both in the United States and in Europe, which proved to be the breakthrough for the new proposal to approach NASA.

“A number of potential investors were contacted, and one of those was Kevin Holleran – a businessman and investor from London, England. Kevin was sufficiently interested to enter into a process of due diligence and eventually decided he would invest in the concept. He then set about identifying individuals and organizations that would be critical to the success of the venture and the building of a credible plan.

These included former NASA scientists and officials, notably ex-Deputy Center Director and former Director of MOD Randy Stone, who introduced Kevin to Dr. Dittmar as someone with substantial political, industry and operational expertise within the space industry.  The team then evolved, ensuring many complex elements of a restart plan were evaluated.

Over time the concept developed toward a full “go forward” plan, based around a return to flight operations returning at a gradually increasing pace, notably wiping out the majority of the US domestic launch capability gap, before hitting the pace of four flights per year in 2017.

Based on “available demand” – details of which are proprietary – it was anticipated one flight would have taken place at the end of 2014, then two in 2015, three in 2016, and four a year beginning in 2017.

The major difference between the team’s concept and the extension studies of the past was the cost impact to NASA. It had always been a central problem for the Agency, where it simply could not afford to pay for everything it wanted to do – specifically the continued flight of the Space Shuttle and the development of the next generation exploration vehicles.

This proposal partially removed that barrier, as explained by Dr Dittmar.

“In previous proposals, NASA was asked to put a substantial amount of funding into the effort – anywhere from $500M to over $1B a year, basically to subsidize the commercial effort as well as to purchase services from the Commercial Shuttle organization.

“In our case, however, Private Investment, individuals, as well as institutional investors and banks, came to the table with significant startup funding for refitting the Orbiters, refurbishing processing facilities, starting up production lines, etc. 

“However, one of our guiding principles was a “non-interference/no negative impact” policy with regard to existing NASA programs and another was that a commercial shuttle would require rapid access to infrastructure in order to be responsive to the market. 

“Much more of the infrastructure had been repurposed toward the existing NASA Programs of Record than we knew when we began.  In the end, it became obvious that this  is one of those situations in which even very substantial funding could not address these issues sufficiently.

“NASA’s support of the discussions was invaluable in helping everyone fully understand the ‘facts on the ground’, while at the same time encouraging the team’s interest in space. We are also grateful for the support of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who advocated a thorough consideration of the initiative from early on in the process.”

The End Of The Restart Effort:

The orbiters continue to be cared for at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), a facility which has already started to transition towards the 21st Century Launch Complex – the name given for the conversion of the Florida spaceport into a future home for the Space Launch System (SLS) and commercial vehicles.

One Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF) is being redesigned to host the flow requirements of Boeing’s CST-100 capsule, resulting in one orbiter taking her turn to enjoy a vacation inside the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB).

Unlike Discovery, whose wings have effectively been clipped by the decommissioning of her OMS Pods, Atlantis and Endeavour have not reached a point of no return – at least not during the evaluations.

Via the construction and evaluation of the restart proposal, the team was aware of the programmatic, technical and operational issues which required resolution before returning the orbiters to flight operations, not least because the vehicles will be changing call signs from Agency to Commercial spacecraft.

The plan was to request NASA issue a “stop order” on further T&R work for Atlantis and Endeavour, allowing for a several month period to finalize solutions to all known challenges relating to restart.

Via the discussions with NASA, the main problem did not prove to be the technical ability to return the two orbiters to flight, nor the often-used dark cloud of crew safety. The roadblock in the plan – a plan which remained in discussion between the team and NASA until this week – was the transition to SLS.

This is ironic, given one of the most expansive shuttle extension studies via the Augustine commission into the future Human Space Flight resulted in former astronaut Sally Ride presenting findings that a preferred transition be the extension of space shuttle operations through until around 2015, providing the follow on program worked with an element of commonality with Shuttle’s hardware. (L2 Link to Documentation)

Despite it taking over two years for NASA to finally announce the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) configuration as one which was Shuttle Derived, it came after the last flight of the Shuttle Program. Regardless, Sally Ride’s plan did fail on costs, which showed NASA funding simply could not afford to continue flying the space shuttle at the same time as developing the new vehicle, a key component which would have been mitigated by the new proposal.

In the end, it was the amount of “repurposing” that has already taken place for SLS which resulted in agreement with NASA that any potential return of the Space Shuttle was no longer viable, ending the discussions.  Whether the technical issues could have been overcome will therefore never be known.

“During the past few months, a last ditch attempt to re-fly the Space Shuttles Endeavour and Atlantis under a truly commercial banner has finally come to an unworkable conclusion,” noted Mr. Holleran in a statement to NASASpaceflight.com.

“A group of space interested investors and technical and operational experts have been working quietly in the background with NASA and major Shuttle suppliers to look at the feasibility of operating the Shuttles commercially. Despite the best efforts of all involved it was simply too late.

“Much of the infrastructure has already been disassembled, or repurposed for SLS and opportunity is lost.”

Despite the setback, Mr. Holleran added the group is now refocusing its efforts on a next generation vehicle, one which includes the numerous advantages of the Space Shuttle’s capabilities. This effort is now in work behind the scenes, ahead of an announcement next year into the outlines of the new system.

“This space interested investment group has now switched its focus to a next generation Space transportation vehicle with Shuttle capabilities,” added Mr. Holleran. “The group hopes to make announcements as to its intentions end of the first quarter of 2012.”

Follow on resources:
Public Forum Reaction Thread.
L2 Q&A with team members on the Shuttle Restart Effort.
L2 Q&A and Updates on the Next Gen Vehicle Effort.

Please note: Clickable links with (L2) references point directly to cited L2 content. Such content is only available to L2 members (please ensure you are logged in). All other clickable links point to NSF articles and open content.

Images: Via L2 content. Larry Sullivan MaxQ Entertainment/NASASpaceflight.com Other images via NASA.)

(NSF/L2 will continue to follow the fallout from this story, along with discussion and updates on the next gen option. To join L2, click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)

Related posts:

1. Senate pass NASA bill for extra funding – shuttle extension goalsThe US Senate has passed the new NASA Authorization Bill...

Hearing:

Wednesday’s hearing by the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics was headlined as a review into the “lessons from the Soyuz Rocket Failure and Return to Flight”, which resulted in positive responses on both the Russian investigation into the failure of the Soyuz – which saw Progress M-12M/44P crash back to Earth - and the effort to return to flight in November.

Those responses came from the high level witness panel, led by Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA Associate Administrator, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, Lieutenant General Thomas P. Stafford, USAF (Ret.), Chairman, International Space Station Advisory Committee, and Vice Admiral Joseph W. Dyer, USN (Ret.), Chairman, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP).

During the hearing, which was led by lawmakers noting it was ironic the failure came one month after the final shuttle mission – with the STS-135 crew in attendance at the hearing – the root cause of the Soyuz problem was noted by Mr Gerstenmaier as related to a low fuel feed to the gas generator – caused by contamination – resulting in the Upper Stage engine failure.

With confirmation the Russians have been cooperative and forthcoming with NASA with regard to the failure investigation – with Mr Gerstenmaier adding they were given overviews first hand, consisting of detailed data, allowing Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) engineers to conduct a background check which resulted in agreement with the Russian findings – questions turned towards the eventual end of the reliance on Soyuz vehicles.

Questions remain on the schedule of handing over to the commercial fleet for US independence – with dates ranging between 2015 and 2017 – although it was stressed by Mr Gerstenmaier the commercial partners are aware they should only fly only when they are ready to fly.

Funding remains the key element of the commercial schedule, while NASA’s two main partners, SpaceX and Orbital, are also working through what was described as “normal start-up transients” – referencing Orbital’s major work at their launch site at Wallops, and SpaceX’s unspecified software issues.

From a cargo perspective, the ISS isn’t racing against deadlines, partly due to the support of other vehicles, such as Europe’s ATV and Japan’s HTV, but also because the final flights of the Shuttle provided the orbital outpost with enough supplies to last until the end of the next calendar year.

Despite this, one lawmaker posed the question on the viability of restarting the shuttle program.

Shuttle Restart:

While General Stafford correctly identified the long pole was the restart of External Tank production at the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) – citing a period of two years (as much as claims have been made it would take 18 months) until the tanks reached their flow points to support missions – Admiral Dyer was dismissive, claiming this had been previously looked into and that the question would have only been “interesting” if it had been asked three or four years ago.

This wasn’t a surprising response from the head of the ASAP, who has been steadfast in his opposition to all additional shuttle missions, even the ones which were praised for leaving the ISS in the current acceptable logistics state.

However, a more expansive explanation – at least from a post-retirement standpoint – was forthcoming via the ASAP 2011 Third Quarterly Report, acquired by this site, which quoted an exchange between Scott Spencer, Transportation Management Consultant and co-author of an open letter to the NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, with the ASAP board.

The letter, co-authored by Christopher Kraft, former Director of NASA’s Johnson Space Center, and endorsed by Space Shuttle astronauts Robert Crippen and Frederick Hauck; Apollo astronauts Neil Armstrong, James Lovell, and Eugene Cernan; the former Director of Mission Operations and Flight Director, Gene Kranz; and other space industry experts, expressed concerns with the Space Shuttle fleet’s retirement from ISS operations.

As noted in the ASAP report, the letter noted concerns with the inability to make repair spacewalks to restore safe and reliable operations if an incident rendered the ISS uninhabitable; and an uncontrolled, catastrophic reentry (with risks to populated areas around the world and the attendant ramifications to foreign relations) from an abandoned ISS.

Ironically, the letter was written before the Soyuz failure and the potential decrew situation.

“Mr Spencer stated that the Space Shuttle fleet is the only spacecraft that is equipped with the airlocks, life support supplies, and robotic arm needed to support the required two-person spacewalking repair crew,” noted the ASAP report into his comments.

“He noted that the letter’s authors and endorsers also believe that the loss of the ISS would destroy the commercial viability of commercial cargo and crew, which is essential for the U.S. return to manned spaceflight if the Shuttles are retired. Keeping the Space Shuttles in service would maintain vital backup contingency for possible risks to U.S. manned spaceflight and the ISS business for the emerging commercial space industry.

“In addition, the letter recommended establishing a new, internationally accepted flight safety criterion: Any object in orbit that is too large for an uncontrolled reentry must have a spacecraft available to support independent extravehicular activity (EVA) repairs.

“With regard to costs associated with the Shuttle fleet, he contended that use of private capital would make it financially and technically feasible to reverse the retirement of the Shuttles and restore U.S. manned spaceflight capabilities in as little as 18 months.”

As such, Mr Spencer requested that the ASAP issue an immediate recommendation for NASA, Congress, and the White House to reverse the decision to retire the Space Shuttles. This request received a negative response from Admiral Dyer.

“In the Panel’s opinion, there was a time for this debate, but it has passed. In the latter part of the last decade, the ASAP highlighted in its reports to both Congress and the NASA Administrator that if the Shuttle’s continuation beyond the planned retirement was to be discussed, the subject needed to be taken up at that time – not only because of knowledge loss, but especially for the second and third tier suppliers of piece parts and critical components, which have now been out of business – well over three years in many cases.

Click here to read further coverage on Shuttle Extension: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/extension/

“VADM Dyer noted that the Panel understood Mr Spencer’s message and what he highlighted, but in the Panel’s opinion, the time has passed for implementing Shuttle’s continuation.”

In response, Mr Spencer stated that that issue was addressed before the letter was written and endorsed, and it was confirmed that the ability to reconstitute and return Shuttle to flight could be accomplished safely and successfully in about 18 months. That would be a faster return-to-flight than what is anticipated for commercial alternatives. He agreed that there would be a delay, but opined that it would not be technically insurmountable.”

Turning to safety – an issue which Admiral Dyer went on the record to cite concerns about when sat alongside then NASA administrator Mike Griffin at the 2009 House hearing to discuss the initial findings of the Augustine Review into the forward path for Human Space Flight – Mr Spencer was questioned on his evaluations into safe flight.

“Mr Spencer noted that the Shuttle’s ability to continue to fly safely is not without risk. However, in his opinion, the safety of the subsequent spacecraft will not be determined until they pass a 100-flight threshold themselves. In terms of relative risk, tradeoffs would have to be accepted,” the notes recorded.

“He felt that the potentially uncontrolled ISS reentry threat to populated areas around the world is an unacceptable risk. Even if the ISS remains safely in orbit after being abandoned, the hearing and review boards that would result would criticize NASA’s decision to leave the ISS without any way of being restored.”

Mr Spencer also noted that the late call to continue shuttle operations came in part due to the lack of an EVA capability being seen on any of the future vehicles, something he felt no one specifically discussed this before Congress or the ISS partners. Mr Spencer also claimed the ISS was designed and built to be operated, maintained, and de-orbited with the support of the Shuttle’s capability.

It was then noted that plans have been in work for the commercial operation of the Shuttle. These plans have been very secretive due to the investor-related nature of such proposals, although it appears Mr Spencer and his co-authors had been made aware – likely the reason for the passionate pro-shuttle return comments from former Apollo commander Gene Cernan at a recent hearing when he claimed the shuttle was in the prime of its life.

“Plans for commercial operation of Space Shuttles have been proposed, but they were never presented to Congress,” Mr Spencer was noted as claiming. “One aspect is the use of private capital and revenue from countries that would want to have space-faring capabilities, which would ultimately neutralize the additional budget that would be required to fly the Shuttles.

“Interest is already being expressed from capital sources who say that with a 20- to 30-year flight service agreement, a significant amount of private capital could be funded to reconstitute the Shuttle program and its operations and minimize the impact on the NASA budget. When safety is at stake, cost is a lower issue to consider in the criteria.”

ASAP appeared to be unaware of such plans and asked Mr Spencer for further information, to which he noted one example, which related to the United Space Alliance (USA) looking at about $1.5B per year for at least two Shuttle flights per year, as well as a Shuttle being available for launch-on-need capability.

He added that at least $500M would be required up front to restart the parts and tanking line, that private capital could put these funds into place to supplement NASA’s effort, although he wasn’t able to say specifically what return-on-investment rate would be required for investors. However, in the discussions that USA had, they were satisfied with the business case.

Notably, the United Space Alliance were not party to Mr Spencer’s letter and no recent news has been heard on any progression to the commercial shuttle effort.

With Endeavour now signed over to her retirement home in California, Discovery’s wings effectively clipped by the decommissioning of her OMS Pods and the effort to remove Main Propulsion System (MPS) hardware for use on the Space Launch System (SLS), it is likely the question from lawmakers on Wednesday was the last time it will be asked.

To read about Atlantis and her sisters – from birth, processing, every single mission, through to retirement, click here for the links:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25837.0

Click here for the amazing MaxQ Entertainment STS-135 Mission Review Music Video:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26178.0

(Images: L2 (animation via L2 sequence set), NASA, USA and Hearing Webcast).

(To join L2, click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)

Related posts:

1. Senate pass NASA bill for extra funding – shuttle extension goalsThe US Senate has passed the new NASA Authorization Bill...

Howard DeCastro Interview:

The Shuttle Program closed out a 30 year career this summer when Atlantis returned home after a highly successful STS-135 mission.

She was welcomed back into the warm embrace of her NASA and contractor workforce, of which the United Space Alliance (USA) team provide the role as the main guardians of the fleet.

The term “bitter-sweet” was mentioned numerous times before, during and after Atlantis’ mission, although the overwhelming public response to the realization that STS-135 was the last NASA shuttle mission saw the word being used in the negative connotation.

Reactions varied from proud, through to sad, bemused and somewhat angry – as the United States effectively gave up its leadership in space – feelings which Mr DeCastro empathizes with.

“I can easily understand the public’s response. All Americans share a common desire to feel secure,” noted Mr DeCastro in an interview with NASASpaceFlight.com. “The U.S. Government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year in Defense and Homeland Security funding to provide for the defense of the nation. 

“Technological developments in space-based battlefield intelligence and war fighter assistance have played a significant role in the tactical successes of the U.S. military in recent campaigns.  Superiority in the air – now space – has long been the key to our national security.

“History has shown that our human spaceflight program promoted domestic security; fostered the development of new technologies and industries; created high-skilled, well-paid jobs; and inspired many of our youth to study science, math and engineering – the technical human capital that ensured our country achieved its global economic strength in the 20th century.”

With the United States losing its own domestic human launch vehicle capability, Americans face a reality of watching their astronauts ride to a Space Station – which they have paid the majority of funding towards – on the Russian Soyuz, at the cost of several hundred million dollars of NASA funding over the next four or so years.

Although this is a temporary requirement, Mr DeCastro – a US Marine Corp. Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) -  added that the implications of this interim agreement are centric to the potential problems a dependency on a foreign nation can result in. Directly, the highly respected manager feels the effective utilization of America’s national laboratory may suffer.

“Based on what I have read in the press, Americans are wondering why the United States would turn over the “high ground” – America’s lead in Human Space Flight – to other nation’s at a time when both our national and economic security are at risk,” he added.

“The United States is now dependent on the Russians to move our U.S. astronaut corps to the Space Station. In addition to the national security and economic concerns that dependence on Russia to transport American astronauts severely limits the amount of time U.S .research can be conducted aboard the Station at the exact point in time when the Station is finally assembled and open for business.

“Despite the fact that the U.S. taxpayer paid tens of billions of dollars to construct the Station’s unique microgravity research laboratory, in the future, the annual mix of astronauts aboard the ISS will be six Russian, four American, and two others (shared by Europe, Japan, and Canada).

“The day-to-day operational workload for the American astronauts aboard the ISS will be high and will provide only limited time for research into important vaccines such as salmonella and MSRA to mention only two of the experiments started by U.S. astronauts this past year.”

Shuttle Extension Articles: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/extension/

While the decision to retire the Space Shuttle was effectively made as a result of the tragic loss of Columbia during her return from STS-107, a retirement plan drawn up under the stewardship of former NASA administrator Mike Griffin – part of the now-defunct Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) – was carried forward and supported by current Administrator Charlie Bolden.

It is often argued whether or not the current administrator could have reversed the retirement decision – had their been the political will – with the shutdown of shuttle-related vendors already in work by the time General Bolden took office.

However, from the early days of his leadership of NASA, it was clear the former Shuttle Commander had no intention of providing the Shuttle with a lifeline – as noted during an interview with the BBC, as he shook his head saying “no, it’s time to move on” when asked if there could be some additional flights.

Since then, General Bolden and especially his number two – Lori Garver – have been using nearly every opportunity with the media to talk of a “bright future”, centralized around the use of commercial vehicles, which are tasked with replacing the human domestic launch capability lost by the retirement of the Shuttle for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) operations.

While that capability is set to return in the 2015 timeframe, Mr DeCastro believes NASA’s transition places the United States human spaceflight program in “jeopardy” via the insistence of “subsidizing” the development of commercial companies which have already shown signs of not being able to keep to their projected schedules.

“In my opinion, the decision to terminate the Shuttle Program does not make sense since the “bright future” is further off than advertised and is dependent on the success of  “commercial” space companies who, so far, have failed to meet their schedules for cargo resupply to the station,” Mr DeCastro noted. 

“As yet those are the same entities NASA wants to rely upon for U.S. astronaut transport. As a business man, I applaud our Nation’s entrepreneurs since they are the backbone of our Nation’s economy. I have been in numerous business sectors during the past 50 years and I value the risk takers who created the industries that made our nation great.

“But if you study this particular situation closely, NASA is placing our Nation’s human spaceflight program in jeopardy in order to subsidize the development of some “commercial” space companies. Personally, I would not risk so much for the benefit of so few.

“I believe the public’s opinion will change only if the United States regains our Nation’s leadership position in human space exploration. I hope I live long enough to see that happen.”

Currently, it is more likely than not that the commercial partners will be able to take up the reigns of providing transportation to NASA astronauts, although that will only be one element of the capability lost by retiring Shuttle both during the gap and the initial ramp up of commercial cargo flights.

“NASA was not provided the funding needed to fly the Shuttles until a replacement program was operational. As a result, NASA has developed plans to support the International Space Station with the transport that is now available,” added Mr DeCastro.

“There is some risk that the providers may not be able to meet the manifest and there is some risk that a component failure on the ISS could reduce its capability and even its length of service. All of this has been carefully considered by NASA and the plans in place have an excellent chance of success.

“Tradeoffs were needed due to funding constraints. Not an uncommon problem these days. If the Shuttle had remained available through the life of the ISS the likelihood of success would be greater. The Shuttle is the only vehicle capable of providing the large component up and down mass necessary to ensure replacement of some systems/components and is the only vehicle capable of providing EVA service should that be required.”

It’s been known for over a year that efforts behind the scenes were being drawn up to provide a commercial option via the use of the orbiters themselves, a plan which would have more than halved the operational costs of NASA’s running of the fleet, running two orbiters (Atlantis and Endeavour) around two flights per year.

Sources note this plan could have been activated even after Atlantis came to a stop on the Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF), resulting in the first commercial flight of a shuttle in around 18 months after an official green light.

Hints towards the continuation of such planning could be seen via comments made after STS-135, when NASA managers John Shannon and LeRoy Cain both noted a “do no harm” processing order was in place on both Atlantis and Endeavour, ensuring they could be returned to flight if required.

While the full details of the plan are restricted, it is understood this remains “technically” available, as much as Mr DeCastro notes it would now require a “miracle” from a funding and political standpoint.

“The decision to terminate the Space Shuttle Program was driven by budget constraints, not the health of the vehicles. Endeavour and Atlantis are capable of flying further missions but, by the end of the year, all three vehicles – Discovery, Endeavour and Atlantis – will be well into processing for transport to their final destinations in Museums throughout the nation.

“Trying to return them to a flight ready status would be costly and time consuming once that processing is completed.

“If a miracle occurred and funding became available to continue Shuttle Operations, it could be managed by NASA or the private sector. The original NASA contract with USA put into place by NASA Administrator, Dan Goldin had a three phased approach with the last phase having USA operate the Shuttle program as a “commercial” venture selling NASA launch services.

“Needless to say, that Phase of the contract was not well received by some powerful decision makers in Washington so it was never implemented.

“During the past decade, NASA, USA and others have examined many ways to eliminate cost from the Shuttle program and operate it in a “commercial” manner so we know it could have been done.

“But it would have required the approval of many different Washington decision makers, some of whom worried about the risk involved in sending U.S. astronauts into space aboard a “commercially” operated vehicle, some who think the government should indemnify a “commercially” operated human space flight vehicle, some who did not think it would benefit the nation if NASA was still paying the bulk of the cost of the program and finally, some who viewed the Space Shuttles as global symbols of America’s leadership and freedom and did not want our Nation to lose that symbol.”

Political obstruction towards any form of extension was seen via the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP), who sided with Mr Griffin during his insistence it was too “risky” – from a Loss Of Vehicle/Crew (LOV/C) standpoint – to extend the Shuttle Program.

ASAP’s remarks drew a rare reaction via Mr DeCastro’s NASA counterpart, John Shannon, who classed ASAP’s comments as “disturbing”. However, ASAP’s stance has never changed – despite a run of amazingly “clean” missions – as seen comments made less than a month ago, when another call to continue flying the Shuttle was strongly dismissed by the advisory body. (An upcoming article will be produced on the ASAP meeting, which was also wary of the commercial companies).

With such staunch opposition, the opportunity for the orbiters to fly again – even via a commercial role – always had a major roadblock from the proposals reaching a level where a serious consideration could be made.

“I could go into lots of details on how to make a “commercial” shuttle program succeed but bottom line there are many ways to make it work and if there were non-NASA customers, the program costs could have been shared,” added Mr DeCastro. “That said, the politics of such a decision blocked it from ever being seriously considered.

“The issue is almost entirely about cost and politics. The Orbiters are fully capable of continued safe operation. It is unfortunate that some have used the argument of “safety” to shorten the life of the Shuttle program. Those of us who have been closely involved in the process know it was a budget decision and a lack of political will to maintain our Nation’s leadership position in Human Space Flight.

“The safety records of the Soyuz compared to the safety records for the shuttle are about even. The most recent Shuttle missions have been among the best ever flown. The Team’s understanding of the Shuttle is better now than at any time in the past.

“The reason to shut down the Shuttle Program is that the Nation doesn’t want to spend any more money on Shuttle. President Bush cancelled the Shuttle Program to fund the Constellation Program. President Obama cancelled the Constellation Program to fund commercial companies.

“It would have been prudent to reinstate the Shuttle Program as part of the cancellation of the Constellation Program to eliminate our gap in America’s ability to access space with human transport.”

The second part of Mr DeCastro’s interview will be published next week.

To read about Atlantis and her sisters – from birth, processing, every single mission, through to retirement, click here for the links:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25837.0

Click here for the amazing MaxQ Entertainment STS-135 Mission Review Music Video:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26178.0

(Images: Via Larry Sullivan, MaxQ Entertainment/NASASpaceflight.com, L2 and L2 presentations, NASA.gov, SpaceX, and USA. Further articles on the fleet will be produced during her down processing, driven by L2 – which is continuing to follow the orbiters via a wealth of FRR/PRCB/MER/MMT and SSP documentation/pressentations, videos, images and more.

(As with all recent missions, L2 is providing full exclusive level mission coverage, available no where else on the internet. To join L2, click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)

Related posts:

1. Senate pass NASA bill for extra funding – shuttle extension goalsThe US Senate has passed the new NASA Authorization Bill...

Manifest Alignment:

The changes to the schedule were initially caused by issues with STS-134′s payload – the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) – which required both the slipping of the launch date and the eventual decision to change the mission order.

With Discovery’s STS-133 mission moving ahead of Endeavour, additional challenges with the conversion of the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) Leonardo into the Permanent Multi-Purpose Module (PMM), and a decision to add two EVAs and three docked days to the mission also played a factor in the schedule debate, moving STS-133 to “No Earlier Than (NET)” the end of October.

The launch date decision was taken at Thursday’s Program Requirements Control Board (PRCB) meeting, which refined internal launch targets by a couple of days. As always, all targets remain subject to change, with the actual approval of a mission’s launch date taking place at the Level I Agency Flight Readiness Review (FRR), around two weeks prior to launch.

“At the PRCB today (Thursday), the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) approved the STS-133 launch date as November 1, 2010 and the STS-134 launch date as February 26, 2011,” noted the official notice to the SSP team members (L2).

November 1 currently allows for a week-long launch window, prior to a long standdown via a beta-angle cut-out which lasts until November 23, followed by Dual Docked Operations (DDO) constraints, caused by the arrival of several vehicles over the interim period – starting with the late November/early December launch of the second ESA Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV-2).

STS-133 Specific Articles: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/sts-133/

STS-134:

As far as STS-134′s launch date is concerned, the February 26 target – which is two days earlier than internal processing notes had listed just recently – may actually move to the left by a week or so, based on the outcome of political discussions on whether to fund SSP further into 2011, mainly to allow for the launch of the notional STS-135 mission.

“For STS-134, (SSP manager) John Shannon said that it is not necessary for us to protect for a launch date in early February 2011,” added the memo.

“He stated that if by Aug/Sept 2010 it looks like STS-135 is not going to happen next summer and if it looks like SSP funding may be running out by the end of Feb 2011, then we may need to consider backing up the STS-134 launch date a week or so, but not as far back as early February.

“So the dates we discussed relative to a 2/28/11 launch should be about the same, give or take a couple of days, to support a 2/26/11 launch date. An updated Management Integrated Schedule will be posted in the near future to reflect the 2/26/11 launch date.”

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

STS-135:

Currently processing as STS-335 – the Launch On Need (LON) rescue support for STS-134 – the opportunity to convert what is currently Atlantis’ flight into a full mission remains at the mercy of lawmakers. Should STS-135 become a reality, internal milestones have already noted a desire to target a launch on July 24, 2011.

Such a date would align with Thursday’s launch date decisions for STS-133 and STS-134, whilst bridging part of the gap between the end of shuttle and the operational use of the commercial vehicles – which will attempt to pick up on at least some of the resupply demands of the International Space Station (ISS).

“The thought would be that if we are going to fly it, we would like to fly it next June in order to supply the Station, and maybe give the commercial team a little break,” noted Mr Shannon via a recent Standup report. “We will talk about this more about the cost and what we would actually do on the mission.”

A transition of STS-335 into STS-135 wouldn’t be problematic from a hardware standpoint, with the Solid Rocket Booster set – SRB BI-146 / RSRM 114 – already being processed at KSC’s Rotation Processing and Surge Facility (RPSF), and the refurbishment of External Tank (ET-122) proceeding to plan.

“Diverting resources off of ET-138 (STS-134 – completed) over to ET-122, and have set up a second shift,” noted the latest update from the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) via L2. “Getting heavy into electrical and mechanical work. Have the intertank scaffolding installed, which opens up a lot of work for them.”

However, a decision – and the allocation of funding – is required soon, in order to allow managers to build a mission profile via the baselining process, along with the planning and implementation of crew training (crew loading).

STS-335/135 Specific Articles: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/sts-135/

Sources note that a political will exists to fly STS-135, with some activity also noted on looking into the potential for an additional mission in 2012.

STS-136:

STS-136, which would likely be awarded to Endeavour, utilizing a spare tank located at MAF called ET-94, per L2 notes – and recently reported by this site. A loss of upmass would be charged against the mission, given ET-94 is only a Light Weight Tank (LWT), as opposed to the Super Light Weight Tanks (SLWT) that have been used in recent years.

An alternative option of using one of the three part built tanks at MAF holds some potential to support a 2012 mission, providing a long-lead item of certifying the latest version the Thermal Protection System (TPS) foam (BX-265) is removed or advanced – currently noted as a constraint to new tank production/completion prior to 2012.

As seen via the 700+ page final assessment into the Shuttle Derived Heavy Launch Vehicle (SD HLV), three part built tanks exist in New Orleans, with ET-139 in a surprisingly advanced stage of fabrication. While work has ceased on all three tanks, they remain in secure storage, as does all of the required machinery to complete the tanks.

However, the required skill sets of the remaining workforce are being depleted as 2010 progresses, which adds to the requirement of a decision taking place – even on the notional STS-136 flight in two years time – “within months”, in order to keep costs down and additional funding levels viable.

In both the STS-135 and STS-136 scenarios, LON would be provided by two Russian Soyuz vehicles, meaning both missions would not launch with a crew greater than four. Adding STS-136 would likely result in STS-134 and STS-135 slipping to the right to align with the 2012 mission.

With the shuttle shutdown continuing at a pace, and seemingly unchecked – even from a contingency standpoint – by NASA’s current administration, each month that passes achieves their stated goal of ending the shuttle era at the earliest possible convenience, thus removing the viability of any political moves to ‘refine’ President Obama’s highly unpopular FY2011 proposal to the point that it includes a mini shuttle extension.

Such political moves continue to be based around adding STS-135, as noted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison – who issues a release after the confirmation the shuttle manifest had slipped into 2011.

“I have called on the President to support stretching out the remaining flights, while adding the launch-on-need flight. Moving these existing flights is an important first step in maintaining our capabilities while we assess and plan for the station’s needs and work on a bipartisan compromise on NASA’s future. The Administration must now work with members of Congress to add the launch-on-need flight as an actual shuttle flight as well.”

Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas went a step further, requesting additional missions past STS-135, in order to support the extension of the ISS through 2020.

“NASA should officially add the final launch-on-need mission to the manifest and consider additional missions to fully service and support the extension of the International Space Station through 2020. And we must move forward with a plan for NASA that preserves our highly skilled workforce, supports the development of commercial spaceflight, and utilizes investments we’ve already made to develop a next generation vehicle.”

However, should political discussion fail to turn into political decisions by the fall of this year, it is likely Endeavour’s STS-134 mission will be the final flight of the space shuttle.

No related posts.

Obama – STS-135 – Extra Shuttle Flight(s):

There were no signs the President would announce any extra shuttle missions, which proved to be the case with Thursday’s event revolving around the current – and highly unpopular – plan for NASA’s future, as outlined in the FY2011 budget proposal.

Some minor “compromises” were confirmed, such as using Orion in a greatly reduced capacity as a lifeboat on the ISS, and a 2015 date to “decide” on a HLV - which was the focus of the President’s address to a hand-picked audience.

NASA’s own administrator – Charlie Bolden, and as his assistant Lori Garver – continue to oppose any extension of the shuttle program. (See live update thread for coverage of President Obama’s visit).

At present, the shuttle’s flying days would end with STS-133 – which is manifested as the final shuttle mission on the current schedule. This mission will be carrying ELC 4 (EXPRESS Logistics Carrier), along with the Permanent Logistics Module (PLM) that will remain on the International Space Station (ISS).

With a launch date of September 16, 2010, Discovery’s 39th flight of her career will utilize External Tank ET-138 for a 10+1 day mission that was to include one EVA, later refined to 8+1 days with no EVAs. A crew of six – led by Astronaut Chief Steven Lindsey – have already been selected for this mission, although this will likely be reduced to a four person crew.

STS-335 was included as the LON (Launch On Need) flight in support of STS-133, which would – in the event of a contingency being called – launch with a MPLM (Multi-Purpose Logistics Module) for the purpose of replenishing the ISS’ consumables for hosting the STS-133 ahead of rescue.

In order to be in a good posture for LON, Atlantis would processed almost as per normal, following her return from STS-132 – up to the point of being near-ready to rollover to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) for mating with the External Tank and twin Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs).

Under the STS-335 requirements, it is unlikely she would leave her Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF) unless STS-133 was declared a contingency, which is in itself highly unlikely based on the shuttle’s record since Return To Flight (RTF).

With all the hardware paid for, work took place on the process of adding STS-335 as a full mission, known as STS-135. In pre-emption of the mission being baselined, Colonel Lindsey was pencilled in to command the STS-135 mission, should it become baselined, possibly with some of his STS-133 crewmembers.

This in turn would open up crew slots on STS-133, which in turn may dictate the timeline STS-135 has to become baselined, in order to allow new crewmembers to be “loaded”.

“Space Transportation System (STS)-133 Crew Training: The crew is at L-33 weeks for a September 16 launch date. Several assessments have been made for this flight for a crewmember swap that would occur in April (Lindsey to (STS)-135),” noted the memo at the time – acquired by L2 in January.

“STS-335: still don’t know if will turn into STS-135. SSP (Space Shuttle Program) waiting for budget direction next week and that the next two flights get off on time, so don’t expect a decision before early April.”

Should STS-135 become baselined as the final shuttle mission, an agreement would need to be in place with the Russians to provide Soyuz LON support. This is believed to have been the reason the mission became less of a possibility earlier this year – along with NASA’s top brass’ wishes to end shuttle operations as soon as possible.

“For now, adding the LON as actual flight will end unless a compelling need arises,” confirmed the DA notes memo (L2), literally hours after the crew loading notes referenced the potential commander swap for STS-133 in relation to STS-135.

However, this week’s Shuttle Standup/Integration report (L2) cited President Obama’s arrival at KSC, and an associated possibility that STS-135 could be added under direction.

“It is a big week for future manifest discussions. The President is going to speak and they are going to have a council/round table meeting on April 15. There is the potential that we could be directed to go fly an LON mission as a standalone mission. We will just standby to see if we need to do that,” noted SSP manager John Shannon.

NASA have already ordered the two SRBs that will fly with Atlantis under the STS-335 LON requirement. The External Tank – ET-122 – was also added to the flight several months ago, with repair work proceeding well at MAF (Michoud Assembly Facility), following its turnaround from Hurricane Katrina-related damage.

“ET-122: Completed all the last sprays in Cell A for the LH2 flange, still have to complete the trims. Wrapping up the ECO (Engine Cut Off Sensors) installation in Cell A. Will re-pressurize as to plan on Thursday, and should lay down on Friday, April 19, and get ready for a move over into Final Assembly,” noted MAF status on ET-122.

“That last spray in Cell A at Michoud is a big deal. It is the last planned spray in the vertical at Michoud.”

Although another completed tank is located at the New Orleans facility, ET-122 is the only available Super Light Weight Tank (SLWT), which is a difference of several thousand pounds of added upmass ability at launch when compared to the older test article tank. Several spare tanks also exist on site, but none of these tanks would be ready prior to early 2012, should an extension become a reality.

Also, it is not certain that Atlantis would gain STS-135, given she lacks SSPTS (Station-Shuttle Power Transfer System) hardware. Depending on the payload, the length of the mission, and related requirements, a decision on when the mission would fly, and which orbiter would gain the flight, is yet to be defined.

Downstream manifest considerations, such as the AMS-2 payload – which is suffering from issues during testing in Holland – would also come into play, potentially swapping the running order of STS-134 and STS-133, although some sources claim the pressure to end shuttle as soon as possible is leading to the potential AMS-2 will be launched, even with a vastly reduced on orbit lifetime.

“On April 16, (NASA Associate Administrator for Space Operations) Bill Gerstenmaier will be at ESTEC (European Space Research and Technology Centre) talking to the AMS team,” added Standup notes. “We should get some good information the following week on where AMS will end up in the overall manifest.

“Once we get those two pieces of data (extra shuttle mission and STS-134 status), we will be able to roll out the final planning for the Program.”

Meanwhile, twice weekly updates (L2) from the Technology Development Activity (TDA) – which took over from the HLV studies after the FY2011 budget proposal ended any realistic chance a Shuttle Derived HLV, and Augustine Commission noted viability for a shuttle extension of any significant length – made a vague reference to extra shuttle flights this week.

“Technology Development Activity (NASA/JSC) Passed on the HLV document to start the editing process. Hope to have the final input (this week). Started an activity in terms of technology demonstrations to look at whether there should be a few extra Shuttle flights and what are some of the technologies we might be able to demonstrate.”

It is currently unclear as to what the shuttle would be used for for these demonstrations, or if it would be viable, without a large manifest stretch up to STS-135, allowing for the next tank – in support of STS-136 – to be available within a reasonable timescale.

No related posts.

Shuttle Extension:

Efforts to reverse the 2010 retirement date of the shuttle fleet have been ongoing for a few years, without being realized – partly due to a lack of support from successive NASA administrators.

Former NASA boss Mike Griffin even worked directly against extension – mainly via protection of the Ares I launch vehicle’s budget – often citing safety concerns which had no basis in post Return To Flight reality.

With a level of support for an extension of the shuttle manifest – in tandem with the development of a Shuttle Derived HLV – gained at the Augustine Committee review into NASA’s Human Space Flight program, the door was opened for building on a 2008 Senate Bill that had already actioned pre-emptive measures to protect shuttle-related assets from decommissioning.

Central to the new Bill – also known as the “Human Space Flight Capability Assurance and Enhancement Act of 2010″ – is a solution to the short and mid term issue of “the gap” for US manned space flight capability, by extending the operational lifetime of the shuttle - as outlined in a series of instructions to current NASA administrator Charlie Bolden, pending the approval of the Bill.

“The Administrator shall take all necessary steps to ensure that all Space Shuttle Program (SSP) activities and operations are able to continue, or to be resumed, including flight operations and support, pending the completion of the reviews, requirements, and reports of this section,” noted the Bill.

“The Administrator shall take all steps necessary to ensure shuttle launch capability through fiscal year 2011 to enable launch, at a minimum, of all payloads manifested as of February 28, 2010.

“In fulfillment of this requirement, the Administrator is prohibited from terminating any contractor support which will endanger or inhibit the launching of shuttle payloads manifested as of February 28, 2010, should launches be required after the first quarter of fiscal year 2011.”

Such instructions hold their own difficulties, with numerous shuttle contractors already shut down via the current budget plan. However, it goes some way to protect the shuttle manifest from hitting a gap of its own, as SSP would enable the construction of the three spare tanks currently located at the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF), for example.

Recertification of the orbiters is not deemed to be a problematic issue, as previously confirmed by SSP management, and recently repeated by Mission Management Team (MMT) chair Mike Moses – who noted the fleet could ‘technically’ keep flying to 2020. A large level of recertification was already carried out on the fleet during the Return To Flight period.

However, in order to satisfy the likes of the ASAP (Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel) – who testified last year that it was their opinion an extension would require a recertification effort, the Bill calls for a short consultation period, in which a certification review would be carried out on the ability for the shuttle operations to continue for an additional five years.

“No later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act the Administrator shall ask the National Academies of Science to appoint a Flight Certification Review Committee, consisting of individuals with appropriate engineering expertise and experience in certification of space flight vehicle hardware, systems, and equipment testing and validation procedures, to review space shuttle certification activities undertaken or initiated after February, 2003.

“The Committee shall provide an assessment regarding the adequacy of those validation procedures in assuring vehicle durability, flight-worthiness, and sustainability for continued operations through a period of up to 5 years beyond the space shuttle flight manifest planned as of February, 2010 (see left for STS manifest as of March 2, via L2).

” The Committee shall take into account current and historical trends in anomaly detection and resolution within major components of the space shuttle systems.

“The Committee appointed under subsection (b) shall complete its task within 90 days of its appointment and shall provide its findings and determinations concurrently to the Administrator and to the committees of jurisdiction no later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act.”

The extension scenario – as outlined in the Bill – calls for two flights per year, which would allow NASA to retire at least one orbiter, likely to remain at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) as a parts donor for her sisters. Two flights per year would also help remove the threat of a gap during the extended manifest, as contractors “catch up” with providing for the additional flights.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent practicable NASA shall operate the Space Shuttle program at a flight rate of no more than 2 missions in any consecutive 12-month period beginning during the fiscal years for which appropriations are authorized under section of this Act.

“The Administrator shall ensure that hardware components in existence as of March, 2010, remain available for use in connection with any additional flights required beyond those on the current flight manifest schedule.”

The Bill also outlines instructions and rules for the eventual termination of shuttle operations, closely associating the needs of the ISS – now extended to 2020 – with the priority of the shuttle’s unique payload capability. Dependant on the translation of the Bill’s language, it also appears to hint towards additional payloads – other than just resupply logistics – could return to the shuttle manifest.

“The Administrator shall immediately upon enactment of this Act, conduct an in-depth assessment of all essential modules, operational systems and components, structural elements, and permanent scientific equipment on board or planned for delivery and installation aboard the International Space Station, including both United States and international partner elements, to determine anticipated spare or replacement requirements to ensure complete, effective, and safe function and full scientific utilization of the ISS.

“The identification of spare or replacement elements and parts currently produced, in inventory, or on order, and the state of readiness and schedule for delivery to the ISS, including the planned transportation means for such delivery. Each element identified shall include a description of its location, function, criticality for system integrity, and specifications regarding size, weight, and necessary con1figuration for launch and delivery.

“The identification of anticipated requirements for spare or replacement elements not currently in inventory or on order, a description of their location, function, criticality for system integrity, the anticipated cost and schedule for design, procurement, manufacture and delivery, and specifications regarding size, weight, and necessary configuration for launch and delivery, including available launch vehicles capable of transportation of such items to the International Space Station.”

Full utilization of the ISS, and support of the outpost through to 2020, is the key for the extension of the shuttle’s upmass – and downmass – capability, with several pages outlining the importance of the “National Laboratory”. However, such a supporting extension of the shuttle will remain a moot point unless additional funding is found – or cuts are made from other programs.

On the topic of costs, the funding for an extension, the first two years are costed at an extra $1.2B in 2011, followed by an extra $2B in 2012. These figures are much less than previously touted, and may have a good selling point for the huge jobs – and more so skill set – savings a shuttle extension would provide.

Commercial Systems:

This latest Bill has been worked on since last year, with consultations and inputs from throughout the industry, including the United Space Alliance, NASA and even SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, with the latter heavily involved.

While the current plan aims to all-but hand over the role of US space flight to the Commercial sector, the new Bill dilutes the role – without U-turning on the FY2011 proposal.

The Bill aims at answering the critics who claim the commercial sector are unproven when it comes to human space flight, with the language aiming to steer commercial companies into successfully demonstrating their ability of providing logistical support to the ISS, prior to being handed over the keys to launching humans.

“The Administrator shall take steps to ensure that the development of space transportation vehicles, systems, and infrastructure shall occur in such a way as to ensure the availability of complementary and, where necessary, redundant transportation systems capable of delivering crew and cargo to low-Earth orbit, in particular to the International Space Station, and to destinations beyond low-Earth orbit.

“Systems developed and operated by the United States Government shall be the primary means for delivering crew and cargo to destinations in low-Earth orbit until such time as commercial entities demonstrate, through a successful flight regime, as determined by established milestones within current Space Act Agreements, that they have the capability to deliver cargo to destinations in low-Earth orbit, including the International Space Station.

“Systems developed and operated by the United States government shall be the primary means for delivering crew and cargo to destinations beyond low earth orbit. Commercially developed launch systems, such as those being developed under NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation System, for which the United States government will serve primarily as a customer, shall be the primary means for delivering cargo to the International Space Stations once they have successfully demonstrated that capability.”

Referenced as a “National Space Transportation System”, the Bill also addresses the question of the need for launch vehicle redundancy. This is where the Bill tips its hat to a potential use of the Orion and Ares I launch vehicle – from at least a technology standpoint.

“The Administrator is directed to develop a plan, no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for the establishment of a National Space Transportation System.

“The National Space Transportation System shall include (1) an architecture of government developed and operated space transportation systems, including one or more launch vehicles and associated crew and cargo carriers.

“(2) a streamlined approach to development and acquisition of such systems funded and overseen by the United States Government, including possible adoption or modification of effective acquisition practices utilized by the Department of Defense, where appropriate, to more effectively meet civil space transportation requirements; (3) an operational concept that utilizes existing government and industry personnel and infrastructure in an efficient and cost effective manner;

“(4) continuation or modification of ongoing programs, associated contracts, and testing and evaluation plans initiated under the Constellation Program, including the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and the Ares-1 Crew Launch Vehicle, to the extent that such elements are determined to be cost effective and operationally effective.

“(5) a plan for incrementally upgrading initially developed and deployed systems so that such systems can be made operational with existing technology at the earliest possible opportunity and then upgraded over time to fulfill more demanding missions and incorporate new technology as it becomes available; and (6) a United States Government managed approach for overseeing and ensuring crew safety, including oversight of human ratings requirements.”

A large section of the Bill is dedicated to the approach required by the commercial companies, including Human Rating, and makes an additional reference towards the ultimate NASA goal of concentrating on beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO).

“It is the sense of the Congress that the development of commercial capabilities for the use of space may be of value in maximizing the utility and productivity of the International Space Station by providing a commercial means of enabling crew transfer and crew rescue services for the International Space Station.

“The Congress further believes that once such commercial services have demonstrated the capability to meet established ascent, entry, and International Space Station proximity operations safety requirements the United States should make use of domestic commercially-provided crew transfer and crew rescue services to the maximum extent practicable.

“The Congress further believes that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration should expedite, where possible, the use of domestic commercially provided International Space Station cargo missions, and that upon the certification by appropriate Federal agencies of operational flight readiness for the provision of commercial crew transportation capabilities, the Administrator should limit, to the maximum extent practicable, the use of a United States government crew transportation vehicle to missions carrying crew beyond low Earth orbit.”

References are also made for a commercial effort to provide cargo return capability – which will be all-but lost when the shuttle’s downmass capability ends with the orbiter’s retirement.

HLV – and return of the SD HLV option:

NASA’s long term focus has always related to exploration, with the central requirement of a large heavy-lifter underpinning the ambitions of a return to the moon and on to destinations such as Mars and its moon Phobos.

A HLV remains in NASA’s plans via the FY2011 proposal, though it relegates its development to one of spending years researching “game changing” propulsion, as opposed to the previously preferred – at the study level at least – transition for shuttle hardware into an Ares V type launch vehicle.

New technologies do receive a passing mention in the Bill, aimed to satisfy those that wish for launch vehicle propulsion to move away from the shackles of the traditional LOX/LH2-powered vehicles.

“The Administrator shall develop and keep up to date a technology development plan to support the evolving requirements of the National Space Transportation System, both for low-Earth orbit requirements and for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.

“Technology funding provided pursuant to this subsection shall be determined based on the specific mission benefits and the performance requirements needed to achieve clearly identified mission objectives, such as planning to reach destinations beyond low-Earth orbit.

“There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator such amounts for technology funding for propulsion elements as may be necessary to advance the state of the art in propulsion elements as a priority over developments of current state of the art in propulsion systems.”

However, the door is reopened by the Bill on the “safer, simpler, sooner” approach of building a HLV from shuttle legacy hardware – such as the External Tank (ET), Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs), Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) and other areas of commonality.

Such an effort would still require a trade study, the Bill notes, which had already been conducted at the request of General Bolden himself - which found in favor of an inline SD HLV over a sidemount SD HLV, and the RP-1 booster.

However, that study would be conducted again – likely taking in a range of HLV options, including Ares-legacy versions – and based on ambitious schedules listed in the Bill.

“As part of the National Space Transportation system, the Administrator is directed to conduct a review of alternative heavy lift launch vehicle configurations that may be developed by the United States government to transport crew and cargo to low-Earth orbit and beyond.

“The review shall: (A) include shuttle-derived vehicles which use existing United States propulsion systems, including liquid fuel engines, external tank, and solid rocket motor technology and related ground-based manufacturing capability, launch and operations infrastructure, and workforce expertise; (B) take into consideration technologies developed under the Constellation Program, including those developed for the Ares I system,

“Include consideration of the degree to which alternative vehicles may be developed in an evolutionary fashion with the objective of supporting initial crew and cargo transportation to the International Space Station by the end of 2013 and missions beyond low-Earth orbit by the end of 2018; and (D) include comparative development and projected operational costs.”

General Bolden would also be tasked with selecting one of the HLV options within six months.

“The Administrator is directed to select a heavy lift launch vehicle and accompanying crew vehicle design concept and to initiate detailed design activities no later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act. If ongoing program development elements and activities from the Constellation Program are to be included in such a National Space Transportation System, the Administrator shall take appropriate steps to extend or modify existing contracts to facilitate this objective.”

The 37 page document is deemed a working draft – though it is the final version (version 15) of the Bill’s development, which is been classed as “sponsored” by Senator Hutchison, with a companion (identical) bill to be introduced in the House by Reps. Kosmas and Posey, and possibly others. The above covers certain – but not all – elements of the Bill.

*To view the entire Bill, click here* – further articles will follow, based on NASA reaction.

No related posts.

Uncertainty and Angst:

It’s no secret that the majority of the NASA and contractor workforce are unhappy with the proposed future offered by President Obama, following the opening statements from NASA administrator Charlie Bolden.

The main issue relates to the lack of any specific goals and timelines – which General Bolden admits are still being worked on – and the mass job losses that will come via the loss of shuttle and the cancellation of the follow-on Constellation program.

While the loss of Ares I has not come as a complete surprise, the entire cancellation of the Constellation Program (CxP) – including the HLV Ares V and the crew transport Orion – gave the impression that NASA’s lead role with Human Space Flight will come to a close when the final shuttle lands (currently STS-133).

This led to SSP manager John Shannon admitting there is “a great deal of angst and hysteria” within the space agency, although he believes this is unjustified.

“There has been a lot of talk about the budget and the Constellation Program. However, for SOMD (Space Operations Mission Directorate), the news was positive. The ISSP (International Space Station Program) has been extended to 2020. A great deal of money has been focused on science and research expansion onboard the ISS,” noted Mr Shannon on a recent Shuttle Standup/Integration report (L2).

“The SSP now has access to $600 million of additional funds, which will allow for the final flights being pushed out through the end of calendar year 2010, if necessary. The NASA top line was also increased, representing a vote of confidence for the job we do.

“There has been a great deal of angst and hysteria, but everyone needs to simply calm down and allow the process to work. It will take some time for the plan to evolve, so we must be patient. There is a great deal of work that must be accomplished over the next year to execute the remaining flights safely and complete the manifest.

“The SSP Team will participate in developing all of the upcoming plans, as we finish this phase of NASA’s work.”

SSP transition to “Game Changing” HLV:

As was seen with the heavy SSP involvement with both the side-mount and in-line HLV alternatives to Ares V – via a study that was called for by General Bolden himself - Mr Shannon noted SSP’s continued involvement with the new “game changing” HLV, although it is currently unclear as to what elements of the shuttle hardware would transition to the new HLV.

“There are a number of technology options being worked that will utilize Shuttle components. NASA has already reached out to various contractors regarding this topic,” Mr Shannon added.

“This is exciting stuff, and more will be released soon. For now, keep doing what you are doing. The Shuttle Team’s execution of the mission, in concert with the ISS Team, is providing stability to the Agency. It is needed at this point in time and truly demonstrates NASA’s competencies to our country and our lawmakers.”

Documented notes are already being produced on the new HLV, via what is being called a TDA effort, run by the same team that worked on the side-mount and in-line HLV studies.

“Technology Development Activity (NASA/JSC): Formerly known as the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) Team, (SSP HLV team leader) now leads the Technology Development Activity. Close out planning is ongoing. A road show is being developed to document the HLV work and future ideas,” opened notes on the new HLV effort, acquired by L2.

“A Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) documentation plan has been created. This will include existing Shuttle hardware and new technology that could be demonstrated on the ISS. A total of 15 items are expected. These will be reviewed with Mr. Shannon.”

Sources note that the “new technology” that could be demonstrated on the ISS relates to the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR) engine, which would be tested by aiding the ISS altitude control – such as reboosts.

The engine – otherwise know as an Electro-thermal Plasma Thruster or Electro-thermal Magnetoplasma engine – uses radio waves to ionize and to heat propellant and magnetic fields to accelerate the resulting plasma to generate thrust. However, due to the power requirements at the ISS, the engine will only be put through minimal testing.

It has been previously intimated that the engine may fly on a late shuttle flight, although a manifest stretch would be required to fit into a near-viable timeline – or of course via an extension for the shuttle program.

Shuttle Extension:

The possibility of extending the shuttle manifest remains technically possible, but continues to lack support from the leadership of NASA.

This week’s Senate and Congressional hearings once again heard the NASA administrator position himself in opposition to an extension – mainly by citing the costs involved, even though he classed the $9 billion invested into the cancelled Constellation Program – potentially less than it would cost to extend shuttle to 2015 – as a “good investment”.

General Bolden – who has flown on the shuttle – also made a reference to the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) report, which cited a need to recertify the fleet in the event of an extension, due to safety concerns. This is directly in contradiction to SSP manager Mr Shannon, who has twice gone on the record to refute the ASAP requirement by noting the recertification work that has taken place on the fleet after the Columbia disaster.

“There were some disturbing remarks from the head of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP). We are working to understand these concerns from a Shuttle risk standpoint,” Mr Shannon in reaction to the initial ASAP report. “We are flying safer now, and have a better safety culture and integrated team approach with many checks and balances to ensure that we are flying as safely as absolutely possible.”

It is highly questionable as to why General Bolden would cite the ASAP report on shuttle extension – in contradiction to his own managers – whilst dismissing the majority of the ASAP findings that were made in the same report, findings which supported Ares I and held grave misgivings about crew safety in relation to commercial vehicles.

However, Wednesday’s Senate hearing gave the opportunity to an Orbiter Project manager – Mike Snyder – to speak to the lawmakers about the shuttle from the standpoint of being deeply involved with the vehicles, allowing for a rare occasion for the internal feelings of the shuttle program to be externally vented, without the constraints managers are tied to when speaking to the media from an official position.

“Contributing to the workforce dilemma is the arbitrary 2010 retirement date of the Space Shuttle that is now upon us and all the consequences that brings. Those of us who have worked on this program for the last several years obviously knew the end of the Shuttle era was coming,” Mr Snyder noted in his opening statement.

“We had hoped that we could “pass the torch” onto a follow-on program, but now, it looks more like we are simply extinguishing it.

“The Space Shuttle’s main reason for existence and its primary mission was the construction and periodic resupply of a space station. By the end of this year, that mission will still only be partially complete. It would be far easier to stand down this unique capability if there were other vehicles ready to fill the void Shuttle retirement will surely create.”

Mr Snyder stole the show during the question and answer session, when he turned around a stale question from the Senator Nelson into a statement about his confidence in the shuttle’s safety and capability, which will be lost at a time the International Space Station is due to hit full utilization.

“We’re looking at a significant strategic mistake by shutting down the space shuttle before we need to. The Space Station is up there now, we’re going to be relying on the Russians for an unspecified period of time,” Mr Snyder added. “You heard General Bolden say he wants redundant access – but when we stand down that fleet, that redundant access is gone and it becomes a foreign monopoly.

“The shuttle is the most capable vehicle we’ve ever had. I would challenge anyone who would say it’s unsafe. Clearly they do not know what we do – day in, day out – to make sure that every mission the fleet is as safe as it could possibly be.

“For the sake of the Space Station, all that money we have spent on getting it up there, we can’t just walk away from it until we know how we’re going to support it. Look what happened to the Station during the Columbia RTF phase. We went from three crew to two crew (who were mainly) carrying out maintenance – just enough to keep the Station operational.

“Today, the Station has five or six people onboard, with many more labs and much more complex. We have ATVs and HTVs, but they were always meant to be in support of the orbiters, so I can’t logically see how – if we take the orbiter out of the loop – we think everything’s going to be fine.

“Ultimately, the commercial providers could eventually get there, but until that time I don’t see how it makes sense to retire shuttle.”

Mr Snyder also pointed towards one of the Augustine Committee options based around an extension of the shuttle, and a smooth transition to a Shuttle Derived HLV vehicle – which arguably would be the least expensive option, provide for retaining key skillsets in the workforce, and close the gap in US manned space flight capability.

“With the HLVs, clearly if you keep shuttle going, there are some synergies that could certainly help drive down the cost of the HLV and potentially the cost of the shuttle program because you could draw off of (that hardware) and off of that workforce,” he added. *Click here for Mr Snyder’s testimony*

During the Senate hearing, former astronaut Robert ‘Hoot’ Gibson also backed the shuttle, citing the 130 flights of the orbiters, four times that of all the other NASA vehicles combined.

However, lawmakers would need to move at a fast pace to approve an extension, as each passing month threatens a gap in flights – based on additional flights after the hypothetical STS-137 or STS-138 flights, which have part-built External Tanks available at the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF).

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.

Waiting for a decision:

Following the Augustine Commission’s review into the future of NASA’s Human Space Flight program, speculation has been rife as to what the President will announce. Such uncertainty has not helped the workforce, most of whom are concerned about still having a job as the shuttle program winds down.

That uncertainty is palpable in the Shuttle Program, with some managers – rightly in most cases – avoiding NASA politics with regards to direction on issues such as extending the shuttle program. However, some managers continue to state shuttle extension is no longer possible, citing lead times on “new” external tanks, such timelines that are based solely on a 2015 extension of the program, a scenario that adds flights past the hypothetical STS-137.

A 2012 extension remains viable via the part built tanks (ET-139/ET-140), added to the use of ET-122 on STS-135 and Soyuz LON (Launch On Need) support for the final mission, yet the clock is well and truly ticking on that viability.

The aforementioned part built tanks are not relevant to the lead times of up to three years, which some managers continue to cite. Such timelines have originated from managers at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), who are closely tied to Ares, whereas managers at the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) cite SMRT documentation that shows no ET machinery has been scrapped, with lead times around half of that stated by MSFC.

Protecting shuttle assets – at least for the current manifest that is likely to include the addition of STS-135 – was noted by SSP (Space Shuttle Program) manager John Shannon, during his end of year address to his workforce.

“We have all worked extremely hard this last year, and we face a challenging year ahead of us. Thanks to the Team for all of its effort this past year. We overcame a great deal of adversity and performed in an outstanding manner,” noted Mr Shannon on the Shuttle Stand-up/Integration report (L2).

“There will be more challenges in the coming year, both from a technical and a human capital standpoint. We have to maintain our focus. There is a great deal of discussion going on concerning what the future will entail, but we must be sure that we do not get distracted from the mission at hand. The work ahead is very clear cut.

“(I have) been assured by all of NASA’s Senior Management that the changes being discussed are prefaced by clear statements that any impacts to Shuttle will not be allowed. The SSP will have all the resources needed to complete the mission. There will not be any constraints or unsafe conditions applied, nor any checks and balances lost, through any of the changes being discussed.

“There will be no idea where SSP will be from a budget-standpoint until the February timeframe. As information comes out during the coming months, we must remain focused. If we do not execute properly over the next year, there will be no future for us. We must do it right. We’ll see everybody next year!”

Only a 2012 extension will be cited in an upcoming bill that is being drawn up by politicians – full details of which are currently embargoed – who are concerned with both the logistical support of the International Space Station (ISS) in the event of an extension of the Station to 2020, and the closing of the “gap”.

Also playing a factor is increased uncertainty surrounding the timelines of the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts, with SpaceX rumored to be struggling with the development of their Falcon 9 launch vehicle, especially with the vehicle’s software.

Government reports recently noted the concern that the 100 billion dollar Station may never be fully utilized, adding fuel to the requirement of extending shuttle – given it is the only vehicle that has large-scale upmass, and downmass – capability.

For recent extension specific articles, click here:  http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/extension/
Reference: Previous *main* Shuttle Extension articles by NASASpaceflight.com:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/12/extension-no-closer-one-heck-of-a-year-for-shuttle/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/09/ssp-fight-back-asap-augustine-claim-risk/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/07/major-shuttle-and-iss-extension-drive-augustine-commission/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/05/nasa-present-two-shuttle-extension-options-to-lawmakers/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/03/aresorion-slipping-18-months-shuttle-extension-upper-hand/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/02/extra-nasa-funds-initial-step-towards-gap-reduction/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/09/senate-pass-nasa-bill-for-extra-funding/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/10/shuttle-extension-white-paper/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/09/nasas-dream-scenario-of-a-13-flight-extension-for-shuttle/

Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift:

An extension of the shuttle program – as stated by the Augustine Commission – would only be viable if the follow-on vehicle is a true Shuttle Derived (SD) LV. Two examples were presented to the Augustine Commission, one which is based on a side-mount option – called the SD HLLV (Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle) – and another called the Jupiter LV.

The SD HLLV – or HLV for short – has received a large amount of attention from the SSP, who have been tasked with the bulk of the evaluations. Those evaluations have resulted in meetings with the Langley Research Center (LaRC) and NASA HQ in Washington, DC – ahead of key “face-to-face” meetings with MSFC.

“The team is working action items in preparation for Face-to-Face Meeting at MSFC. The team is ‘GREEN’ on performance ground rules for understanding which missions HLV is best suited to support. Are coming to terms with how to integrate avionics and software between Block I and Block II,” noted one of several notes on the Stand-up reports (L2), with this update dating at the end of November.

“Mr. Shannon added that MSFC’s team met with the stakeholders to review progress to date. The group is investigating various designs and technology needs/schedules and comparing this to performance trades, so that when the mission is defined, we will be able to understand how this will affect the vehicle selection.

“One of the key issues is to be able to perform an accurate cost assessment on these options. We will be informed of what the team has determined and understand what architectures apply to what missions. Assessment of the appropriate path forward will then go through the early part of 2010.”

The meetings with the MSFC team related to the study requested by new NASA administrator Charlie Bolden, who created a “Special Team” to evaluate all the Heavy Lift alternatives – which was commented on in early December notes on the Stand-up report.

“The MSFC team put together a suite of launch vehicles that the HLV team will assess, made up of Shuttle derived, inline, and Ares V type concepts. (MSFC) put together a suite of missions that the team will evaluate these launch vehicles for. Are still negotiating for some of the ground rules planned for the costing, performance, and so forth.

“The actions that came out of that meeting were to better identify what the real drivers are to start up production and build new hardware, better define the figures of merit with the real purpose of what we are doing, and do a comparison between the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV) studies done with the Program of record.”

The Program Of Record (POR) is Ares I and Ares V, with both vehicles closely tied at the hip. While Ares I is doubtful to survive past the early part of 2010, Ares V may yet survive – by name at least – as sources note an “Ares V Classic” has been cited numerous times as one of the vehicles being discussed, a vehicle that appears to be akin to a “Jupiter-241 Stretched Heavy” (see image left) - which would be the Block II version of such a “Classic” vehicle.

The Block I version would have the appearance and configuration of the “Jupiter-244 RL-10″, although no direct references – no pun intended – have been made by name on documentation, although “different” vehicle options, other than the HLV, have been cited numerous times in December updates.

“We will get the outbrief from MSFC’s team that is looking at the different launch vehicle options, some architectural options,” added a Stand-up note in early December. “There will be no decisions out of that. It is really more to scope what different options would cost, what schedules would be required.

“Once we get some budget information and some direction from the White House, we will be able to take all the data that the team has put together, see where we are, and pull together a plan in short order. This is laying the groundwork for future decisions.”

As far as SSP are concerned, the sidemount HLV continues to be the focus of their evaluations, with the last update of the year referencing work on the departure stage and the payload carrier.

“The focus will be on a new concept for the departure stage and how best to integrate the RL10s (engines). Had a great review with Langley on some configuration changes for the payload carriers, to be considered for the next design cycle. There is a Face-to-Face to baseline the configuration to be used for the design cycle.”

However, another Heavy Lift vehicle came out of the blue in December, via an internal 65 page presentation on NASA’s overview (available on L2) of what it believes can be accomplished via the Flexible Path options, per Augustine Commission.

While the presentation is far-reaching on various mission outlines – including missions to Near Earth Objects (NEOs), GEO Space Telescopes, and manned missions to Mars (all of which will be reported in an upcoming article) – a monster 200 metric ton human rated “Exploration Class” launch vehicle is referenced several times.

“Exploration-Class Rocket: A human-rated system with LEO throw-mass on the order of 200 mt, designed purposely for extremely high reliability and minimum operations cost, rather than being sized directly by an architecture that may change later,” noted the presentation. “200 mt, sized by ‘knee in the curve’ of LV economics. Not driven by the architecture de jour.”

No specific designs are included in the presentation, with a Saturn V schematic shown next to the 200mt references. However, such a vehicle would likely to be a three stage Ares V type heavy lifter. How such a massive vehicle could be afforded is questionable.

For the interim, all eyes remain on the President, who – it is hoped – will show his willingness to help NASA achieve its goals via support for an increased budget.

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.