No Go To The Moon:

In the wake of the Columbia tragedy, the Vision For Space Exploration (VSE) provided NASA with a roadmap to retire the Space Shuttle fleet after the assembly of the International Space Station (ISS) was completed, prior to focusing on a return to the surface of the Moon via the Constellation Program (CxP).

“Moon, Mars and Beyond” was the goal, with a return to the Lunar surface classed as a required stepping stone on the path to Mars.

Following the demise of the Constellation Program, the focus switched to missions to visit a Near Earth Asteroid (NEA), before once again taking aim on what has consistently been NASA’s big goal of sending humans to Mars.

This new roadmap is still – and is likely to remain for some time – under construction, with only Exploration Mission -1 (EM-1) all-but set in stone for the debut launch of the Space Launch System (SLS), sending an uncrewed Orion on a fly-by of the Moon in 2017.

Exploration Mission -2 (EM-2) was to be tasked with a crewed version of EM-1, on a slightly longer mission that allowed for several orbits of the Moon.

However, that mission has since been re-purposed into an ambitious flight of an Orion crew to “get hands on” with a captured asteroid.

The following missions for SLS and Orion remain undefined, with the SLS manifest to 2032 (L2) only showing placeholders for one SLS launch per year, as the vehicle evolves from its 70mT capability, through to 105mT and eventually its fully evolved state as a 130mT capable Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV), required for what NASA claim will be missions to Mars in the mid-2030s.

It is likely NASA will undertake yet more ambitious NEA missions in the mid 2020s, venturing further out into deep space, as they validate the technology required for keeping a crew alive on missions lasting hundreds of days.

There also remains the possibility NASA will further evaluate the potential for an Exploration Platform, or Gateway, constructed at the ISS and sent out via Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) to the EML2 location. However, such a facility is yet to receive any notable political support.

Although missions to the lunar surface have never been fully promoted by NASA’s leadership since the end of the Constellation Program, the option has always been there, as seen via the internal exploration roadmap evaluation process.

Internal documentation placed the potential for NASA missions to the Moon within the ESD Concept Of Operations (Con Ops) presentations (L2) – listing it alongside the main NEA (Earth Earth Asteroid) missions under the Architectural Timeframe Design Reference Missions (DRMs).

“Lunar Surface Sortie (LSS): Lands four crew members on the surface of the Moon in the equatorial or Polar Regions and returns them to Earth,” noted one such example within the ESD Con Ops presentation.

“Expected drivers include: MPCV (Orion) operations in LLO (Low Lunar Orbit) environment, MPCV uncrewed ops phase, MPCV delta V requirements, RPOD (Rendezvous, Proximity Operations and Docking), MPCV number of habitable days.”

However, footsteps back on the Moon – at least via the boots of NASA astronauts – appears to be no longer a viable option, with General Bolden throwing a large amount of cold water on the prospect this year.

Per the issues, almost all related to NASA’s restrictive budget, General Bolden recently provided one example as to why NASA won’t be returning to the Moon, namely the apparent cost of the Lander.

During the Constellation Program, the lander – known as Altair – was already into the planning stages at the related NASA centers. However, Altair died, along with its launch vehicle – the Ares V – when CxP ended.

After being asked about the possibility of inserting lunar surface sorties into the exploration roadmap at a recent congressional hearing, General Bolden made the claim it would cost NASA between $8-10 billion to resurrect Altair through to the point of achieving lunar landings with it.

General Bolden followed up his comments during this week’s Explore Mars event, in which he praised the current – albeit yet undefined – roadmap as “realistic, affordable and sustainable”, providing the path remained focused on Mars in the 2030s.

Any future political redirection to include a return to the Moon’s surface, would – he claimed – seriously impact on the potential of sending humans to the Red Planet.

“We need to try and get all of us on to the same sheet of music in terms of the roadmap,” noted the NASA head. “(If we) have someone in the next administration who could take us back to a human lunar mission, it’s all over, we will go back to square one.

“I believe (that would mean we) would have missed the second greatest opportunity for humanity to go on to deep space and do what humans have wanted to do for hundreds of years.”

Golden Spike Lander:

While NASA’s current leadership are against returning to the Moon, the Golden Spike company – formed in 2010 and led by Gerry Griffin and Alan Stern – are aiming to provide a commercial opportunity for people to set foot on the lunar surface as early as 2020.

With the goal of raising $7-8 billion – an amount that would fund all the required systems development and integration, a careful multi-mission flight test series, and a healthy level of project reserves – Golden Spike made their plans known to the public last December.

The announcement included notional graphics, including a sporty looking hardware, before revealing they had arranged a feasibility study into a new commercial lunar lander, an effort that has been undertaken by Northrop Grumman Corporation.

That study was completed this week, with Northrop Grumman providing an overview of their lunar expedition architecture that includes a novel new, low-mass ascent stage concept dubbed “Pumpkin.”

After evaluating 180 lunar lander cases for various options and sensitivities – including loiter, staging, propellants, engines, surface duration, surface cargo and technology basis – the study determined that a set of options, using a minimalist pressurized ascent pod and descent stage with a surface habitat, was shown to be viable.

The study also showed the minimalist ascent pod with surface habitat concept could fit inside a five-meter diameter fairing payload envelope.

“This concept has significant operability advantages for surface exploration since the surface habitat can be segmented to isolate lunar dust and provides more space for living and for selecting the most valuable lunar return samples,” noted Martin McLaughlin, Northrop Grumman’s study lead.

“We affectionately call the minimalist ascent pod ‘Pumpkin’ because of its spherical shape and because it returns the crew to orbit after the surface exploration party.”

The study also determined there are numerous options for cryogenic propellants, when compared with storable propellants, but that multiple storable propellant options are possible. Options with cryogenic propellants have higher performance, but are more difficult to contain for the GSC mission duration than storable propellants, such as those used in the Apollo program.

“Northrop Grumman has done an exemplary job and helped advance Golden Spike’s technical approach to renewed human lunar exploration,” added Mr. Stern. “The study’s results are very exciting and will help enable a new wave of human lunar exploration that Golden Spike plans.”

(Images: NASA, NG, Golden Spike and L2)

(NSF and L2 are providing full exploration roadmap level coverage from Orion and SLS to ISS and COTS/CRS/CCDEV, to European and Russian vehicles.)

(Click here to join L2: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/ )

Related posts:

1. India launch debut moon mission in collaboration with NASA and ESAThe Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has launched their Chandrayaan-1...
2. Second Guessing NASA VSEFive Alternative Visions for Space Exploration. As concerns grow in...
3. Altair project buying into Orion lessons for development processAs Orion and Ares progress towards PDR (Preliminary Design Review)...

SLS Five Segment Booster:

Following the success of the three static fire tests of the five segment motor that was initially set to launch Ares I – before being re-purposed for the SLS – ATK are now deep into their preparations for the next major milestone, the Qualification Motor -1 (QM-1) test, which is set to take place at the end of this year.

The three Demonstration Motor (DM) firings provided a vast amount of data on the longer version of the booster that became famous during the Space Shuttle Program (SSP), with the most recent test – DM-3 – being the most heavily instrumented solid rocket motor in NASA history, with a total of 37 test objectives measured through more than 970 instruments.

The results of the DM tests have allowed ATK to complete the booster’s Preliminary Design Review (PDR) in conjunction with NASA, a milestone review that was conducted well within the planned schedule path for the opening SLS launch in 2017. The booster element for SLS currently enjoys around one year of margin.

The opening SLS mission, known as Exploration Mission -1 (EM-1), will involve two of the new five segment motors heading to the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) for Booster Integration (BI) processing, with the flow almost mirroring that used during the 30 year career of the Space Shuttle.

Click here for 100s of News Articles on the SRBs: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/srb/

“The booster PDR was successful and speaks to the importance of a collaborative design process with our NASA customer” noted Fred Brasfield, ATK vice president, Next-generation Booster.

With the successful completion of PDR, the SLS booster team at ATK can now advance the design toward the Critical Design Review (CDR). This review will come after the next static fire involving QM-1.

Despite a slight slip in the schedule – mainly related to an issue with the aft segment of the QM-1, which was found to have about a two foot-wide area where propellant had debonded from the inside of the segment wall – the QM-1 segments are now building up at the test site at Promontory, Utah.

At present, engineers have both the forward and center segments being placed into position at the home of the booster test firings.

SLS Advanced Booster:

The five segment boosters will continue to provide the bulk of SLS’ launch power during first stage flight through into the second half of the 2020s.

Following that, SLS will receive an additional boost via the addition of “Advanced Boosters”, enabling SLS to evolve to a launch vehicle capable of lofting 130mT of payload – deemed a requirement for missions to Mars.

Several companies are in the early stages of developing their proposals under NASA’s SLS Advanced Booster Engineering Demonstration and/or Risk Reduction (ABEDRR) procurement, ranging from solid to liquid options – such as Dynetics Inc./Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR), who are proposing the use of the famous Saturn V F-1 engines to advance SLS’ capability to launch payloads of up to 150mT to orbit.

ATK’s own proposal – as outlined in a presentation acquired by L2 – builds on their legacy with the four and five segment boosters, with a motor that is “advanced” on several levels, by “provid(ing) NASA the capability for the SLS to achieve 130 mT payload with significant margin, utilizing a booster that is 40 percent less expensive and 24 percent more reliable than the current SLS booster.”

Click here for SLS News Articles: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/hlv/

The company’s proposal includes a higher ISP density of the propellent, boosting payload performance by nearly 25,000lbm, yet saving $9.2m in costs per booster. With the increased operating pressure, improved propellant, tailored thrust profile, increased expansion ratio all combine to provide a 15.1mT boost to the SLS’ payload capability.

Around six months into the development process, ATK’s Advanced Booster NASA Research Announcement (NRA) team is working to overcome key technological challenges and reduce the overall risk posture of an Advanced Booster.

According to ATK, some of the current Advanced Booster tasks are being worked on by the Propellant/Liner/Insulation (PLI) Integrated Product Team (IPT), who are tackling the challenge of developing a high-performance, low-cost PLI system.

Not unlike testing different mixes of paint at a hardware store, the PLI IPT are busy establishing a design of experiments (DOE) matrix, cooking up 66 unique propellant mixes to test candidate propellant formulations for burn rate performance and mechanical property characteristics.

ATK note that several “families” of solid propellant formulations are being evaluated in the DOE, with multiple variations within these families undergoing testing to select the best formulation within each family to pursue further testing within larger scale mixes.

The team working on the mixes include expert propellant chemists Ingvar Wallace, Jay Shuler and Michael Smith, who are attempting to select the best mix by the early part of this summer, ahead of the favored propellant formulation being tested in the NRA’s 92-inch diameter integrated static test in early 2015.

Lead Image: Screenshot from the amazing 220mb super slow-mo DM-3 Five Seg Motor Ground Test Video -  available in L2 – LINK).

(Other Images: Via ATK, NASA and L2 content from L2′s SLS specific L2 section, which includes, presentations, videos, graphics and internal – interactive with actual SLS engineers – updates on the SLS and HLV, available on no other site.)

(L2 is – as it has been for the past several years – providing full exclusive SLS and Exploration Planning coverage. To join L2, click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)

Related posts:

1. SRB Holddown posts undergoing redesign evaluation ahead of STS-119Engineers will meet in the middle of January to push...
2. Second Guessing NASA VSEFive Alternative Visions for Space Exploration. As concerns grow in...

EM-2 Asteroid Mission:

The mission involves three segments: the first is the detection and characterization of the candidate Near Earth Asteroids (NEAs) phase; the second segment involves a robotic rendezvous, capture, and redirection of a target asteroid to the Earth-Moon system; the third segment involves a crewed mission to explore and sample the captured asteroid using the Space Launch System (SLS) and the Orion crew capsule.

Based on the initial target date presented to lawmakers in the FY14 Budget Proposal, the Orion trip to the captured asteroid is likely to be a realigned version of the 2021 Exploration Mission -2 (EM-2).

Concerning the redirection segment, Mr. Gerstenmaier – presenting the mission to the NAC – said that the high powered (40-kW) Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) hardware “plays a key role” in this aspect of the mission.

The word “redirect” is being used for this part of the mission, because the asteroid cannot be maneuvered into cislunar space, it “must be heading back to cislunar space on its own.”

“(The asteroid is) continually thrust upon by the SEP, essentially deflecting it or redirecting it into the earth gravity or lunar gravity. With gravity assist – and then with some continued thrusting – you end with a deep retrograde orbit around the moon. That is a stable orbit that can be stable for up to a hundred years.”

Mr. Gerstenmaier admitted the team will have to work with a large set of criteria, in order to find the correct target asteroid.

“(We) have to find an object that is naturally of the right size, that has the right spin characteristics, right mass and which has to be heading back into cislunar space at the time.”

Interestingly, the Associate Administrator also noted the search for a candidate asteroid may result in some of the discarded Saturn IV upper stages from the Apollo era being spotted in deep space.

The S-IVB’s used during Apollo 8 through 12 are currently believed to be wandering around in a Heliocentric orbit, with Apollo 12′s S-IVB actually mistaken for an asteroid in 2002.

However, Mr. Gerstenmaier believes they can now determine where the Saturn upper stages are located and will be able to identify them, given NASA have calculations on their current positions. The density of the upper stage is also fairly low, when compared to an asteroid.

It was also noted NASA conducted a preliminary study with object 2009 BD, although it was determined that this asteroid could not be brought back to cislunar space until 2024, even if it met all of the conditions.

Per the proposed asteroid mission, a large body of work will have to be conducted on all of the mission elements.

One example provided by Mr. Gerstenmaier related to the SEP thrusters, that would need to fire for almost a year, requiring 12mT of xenon gas. Since the channel wall of the hall thrusters can erode, magnetic protection will also be needed.

Another challenge involves designing “a capture device that takes the wobble out” of the asteroid. Because of this, you need “a soft enough capture device like a spring tamper kind of device,” added Mr. Gerstenmaier.

“(NASA is) looking at the schematics of some inflatable device, that takes out (the) nutation slowly enough that it doesn’t overload (the) solar array. There is a lot of spacecraft motion. (The spacecraft is going to) essentially ride with this asteroid for a while.”

The spacecraft would use a “hydrazine system to despin this asteroid”. After this, the asteroid is redirected, using the thrusters, with the biggest challenge relating to capturing it -  something that “couldn’t be guaranteed.”

The third part of the mission is the estimated 20 day crewed flight to explore and sample the captured asteroid, utilizing the SLS and Orion – with the centerpiece of the mission being the EVAs to document and take samples of the asteroid.

Mr. Gerstenmaier mentioned NASA teams “were looking at potentially using the launch and entry suits with a modified TMG (thermal meteoroid garment) to provide an EVA capability.

“We envision two EVAs opportunities during the attached period, each with a duration of about 3 to 4 hours. (The spacewalks) would not be sophisticated EVAs, they would be simple, to go and grab a sample.”

To allow the spacewalkers to translate across to the captured asteroids, they would need “to put some booms across and modify the robotic spacecraft to have some handles for translation path.” Mr. Gerstenmaier added that the Orion EVA capability “was a design case for Orion, but not many people thought that we were going to do it fairly early in the (exploration roadmap) sequence.”

It was also mentioned that NASA could conduct an EVA at the ISS, with the new suits, in order to buy down some risks.

According to Mr. Gerstenmaier, the mission makes sense, since it involves a lot of activities that were already being conducted by various directorates, unifying them into one mission: asteroid identification and characterization, solar electric power (solar arrays and hall thrusters), in-space robotic activities, heavy lift and Orion.

The mission also builds NASA’s “tool box” for the ultimate goal, Mars.

“The robotic spacecraft that we build may be the robotic bus that (NASA is) going to use for propulsion in the future,” adding he had spoken to the international community about this mission on two occasions, and there is “general interest in it,” – ranging from observation opportunities to technology or mission design pieces.

Using Orion also has its advantages, given “it serves a rescue function, or a safe haven function, for the habitation module. It can take a three quarter inch hole on the other side of the Moon and still return four crew safely.”

The asteroid capturing mission itself will not need a habitation module, but later missions are likely to need one. The habitat itself could be derived from Orbital’s Cygnus spacecraft or Japan’s HTV, incorporating a next generation life support system which will also involve demonstrations on the ISS.

As with EM-1, the Service Module for the EM-2 mission will be provided in part by ESA, via hardware from their ATV (Automated Transfer Vehicle) cargo ships.

The history behind the decision to use ESA’s ATV for the service module was discussed at the same meeting by Kirk Shireman, Deputy Manager, International Space Station Program.

“Initially, there was discussions about (additional) ATVs, but ESA doesn’t really want to build any more,” Mr. Shireman noted.

“ESA was really interested in building something new. They actually wanted to build a human capsule. We told (ESA) that (NASA) didn’t have any interest (in this), that they are welcome to do that but not with (NASA’s) money.”

Shireman explained that he sees “common system ops costs” as NASA money, and added that he didn’t see “why NASA would invest in ESA building a crewed vehicle for (NASA).”

However, per the arrangement for ESA to provide ATV technology for Orion’s Service Module, this is now something he sees as “a wonderful solution.”

The new mission will now progress towards a feasibility review, sometime this summer.

(Images: NASA and L2)

(NSF and L2 are providing full exploration roadmap level coverage from Orion and SLS to ISS and COTS/CRS/CCDEV, to European and Russian vehicles.)

(Click here to join L2: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/ )

No related posts.

SLS SMAT:

Continuing the heritage of testing future launch vehicles at the scale model level, NASA engineers have test fired scaled versions of rockets to gain data on the acoustic environments endured during ignition and launch.

The primary source of the acoustic field is the fluctuating turbulence in the mixing region of the rocket exhaust flow – known as Engine Generated Acoustics.

Engine generated noise is a function of the exhaust flow parameters, launch stand configuration, and to a lesser extent atmospheric conditions.

Preliminary estimates of the engine generated acoustics at a specified location on the vehicle can be determined by scaling measured acoustic data from previous launch vehicle programs, taking into account the above mentioned flow, configuration, and atmospheric parameters.

A better definition of the lift-off acoustic environment can be determined from hot fire testing of dynamically scaled models of the launch vehicle and stand.

During the Space Shuttle development program, a 6.4 percent scale model of the launch vehicle, propulsion system, launch stand, and exhaust duct system with water suppression was used to refine the analytical/scaling estimates of the lift-off acoustic environment.

The resulting data provides a very useful template for the full scale rocket, although final verification of the environment is only fully provided by full static firings or launches of the actual vehicle.

Notably, the debut launch of the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) – with Columbia on STS-1 – showed the importance of understanding the acoustic environments, as the orbiter’s heat shield was damaged when an overpressure wave from the SRBs caused a forward RCS oxidizer strut to fail. Her body flap was also pushed five degrees out of position.

The subject was also raised during STS-129′s Flight Readiness Review (FRR), as a potential issue with a very small area of the orbiter – known as a stinger attach point between the RCS and OMS Pod – raised concerns that recent acoustic environment analysis of the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) during ignition could cause stressing that potentially leads to cracks in the attach pins/stinger.

Although those concerns were based on old and overly conservative data, managers showed their usual due diligence in gathering an array of updated information, via new computational models, borescope inspections on the fleet, and the installation of sensors in the area in question – all of which would be used to completely allay the potential fear of life fatigue on the stinger.

Click here for FRR Articles: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/frr/

Notably, the FRR presentations noted they lacked key historical data, given the 6.4 percent model tested during the 1970s only fired motors that mimicked the Solid Rocket Boosters and not the SSMEs, while Main Engine Ignition (MEI) Acoustic & SSME Ignition Overpressure (IOP) Environment data was classed as “continually evolving” during the 30 years of the program – leading to the concern ahead of STS-129.

The vehicle that was set to replace the Space Shuttle, Ares I, also underwent IOP testing – with the Ares I Scale Model Acoustics Test (ASMAT) tested during 2010.

Numerous tests, each using a different pad configuration – such as with and without water bags within the launch mount – were conducted at MSFC.

Quick look test results indicated that the overall noise levels measured on the vehicle were within predicted ranges and the data compared favorably between the firings. However, Ares I was cancelled shortly after the ASMAT firings.

With the SLS now providing the role of NASA’s flagship launch vehicle, the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) will enjoy its turn on the test stand for the acoustic environmental tests – known as Scale Model Acoustic Test (SMAT).

Work begin in 2012 at Marshall’s test stand 116, with the construction of a working water-based sound suppression system.

“This water system will be used during the planned hot fire testing series that is planned for SMAT, which utilizes small-scale solid rocket Boosters and Lox-Hydrogen thrusters,” noted L2′s rolling SLS updates.

“Based on discussions with NASA/KSC Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO) engineers, MSFC is satisfied that this properly represents the water flow rates and coverage of the full-scale system and will meet the test needs for SMAT.”

Click here for SLS Articles: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/hlv/

As with the tests on the previous vehicles, the data will provide a good baseline ahead of the actual SLS firing into life later this decade.

Notably, the SMAT will involve the most technically advanced sub-scale rocket used on such a test.

“Ignition overpressure (IOP) is a significant transient low-frequency pressure event caused by the rapid pressure rise rate of the solid rocket motor,” opened an extensive presentation on the SMAT (L2). “Lift-off acoustics (LOA) noise is caused by the supersonic steady jet flow interaction with surrounding atmosphere and launch complex, persisting for 0-20 seconds as the vehicle lifts off.

“Scale Model Acoustic Test (SMAT) objectives: Verify predicted LOA environments, obtain data to update the lift-off acoustic environments. Verify predicted IOP environments, obtain data for use in IOP analytical models for updated environments, and improve IOP analytical models.

“Verify SLS deflector design. Characterize Ground Acoustic (GA) environments, provide data to support GA environment predictions. Obtain Spatial Correlation (SC) data for use in vibro-acoustic models. Obtain data for Computation Fluid Dynamics (CFD) validation, and evaluate water sound suppression systems, determine water suppression attenuation.”

Obviously, engineers won’t be able to literally scale down the SLS’ RS-25 main engines or five segment SRBs, so alternative motors will be used on the SMAT model.

As such, two Rocket-Assisted Take Off (RATO) motors will simulate SLS boosters, with the test requirement calling for the motors ignite simultaneously, as the SRBs would during launch.

Testing has already begun on the small thrusters that will provide the role of the four RS-25 liquid main engines on the core.

A single thruster – similar to vintage hardware originally designed in the 1960′s and tested during the Space Shuttle program – successfully met all test objectives during Phase I scale model acoustic testing last year at Marshall’s Test Stand 115.

Fabrication then began for a “fourthruster cluster” set, mirroring the four RS-25s that will power all versions of SLS’ core stage.

“Hot-fire testing was initiated for the thrusters that will simulate the Core Stage Engines for the Scale Model Acoustic Test (SMAT). All four thrusters have been tested together for the first time in a single cluster in the same configuration that will be used for the Core Stage of the SMAT model,” added SLS’ rolling update section (L2).

“Testing is being conducted at Test stand 115 in the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) East Test area. The first start ignition test was conducted on March 7, 2013. Two low thrust main stage tests were conducted on March 8, 2013. All test hardware is in excellent condition so far and (will continue testing during the Spring).”

When the actual SMAT model is completed and integrated on the test pad, a number of tests can be expected, not least because the maximum lift-off acoustic environment during an SLS launch will not be endured in the vehicle starting position, but at some elevation above the Mobile Launcher.

As such, tests will probably attempt to simulate a lift-off, without the SMAT model actually launching.

For the Ares I Scale Modelling Acoustic Tests, the vehicle model was set at a number of fixed elevations for individual test firings, these being 0, 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10.0 feet. Based on the scale of the ASMAT, these distances corresponded to full-scale elevations of 0, 50, 100, 150, and 200 feet.

Also, as expected, the test vehicle will be heavily instrumented, with five primary instrumentation suites resulting in over 325 sensors on the SMAT rocket.

It will be outfitted with B&K 4944-B microphones, pressure transducers on the tower/mobile launcher. It will include far field measurement devices, accelerometers, thermocouples and strain gauges on vehicle, thermocouples, flow meters and chamber pressure instrumentation.

The first test fire is expected to take place either in the summer of fall of this year.

(NSF and L2 are continuing to provide the most extensive and exclusive SLS coverage. To join L2, support the site and access a huge database of content, click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)

Please remember to use the below social media options to share this article with your friends to get them interested in the nuts and bolts of space flight.

No related posts.

Interest In Asteroids:

The announcement – made during the FY14 Budget Proposal overview – is part of President Obama’s vision of sending humans to a “Near Earth Asteroid (NEA)” by 2025, although it is vastly different to all the previous NASA studies relating to visiting a space rock.

While asteroid aspirations have been part of NASA discussions since the 1970s, mission planning has suffered from the ever-changing political direction that has curtailed the agency from sticking to a long-term exploration roadmap.

Back during the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) days, NASA’s goal was to visit the “Moon, Mars and Beyond” – a roadmap that was designed to redirect NASA following the decision to retire the Space Shuttle fleet.

While it wasn’t classed as a priority, notional studies cited a journey to an asteroid as a potential stop-gap option, inserted in-between the end of the ISS’ active role and the eventual return to the Moon, honing NASA’s skills in relearning human space travel outside of Low Earth Orbit (LEO).

With NASA’s direction maturing into the Constellation Program (CxP), the goals became more focused on a return to the Moon’s surface – with the potential to set up a Lunar Base – before taking aim on the ultimate goal of Mars.

However, as CxP began to suffer from major schedule problems, a major alternative option was evaluated around the Augustine Commission’s review into NASA’s Human Space Flight plans.

Known as the “Flexible Path”, the expansive study finally provided hard details on potential NEA missions. The internal 65 page Flexible Path presentation – available on L2 – presented actual destinations for missions that would launch in the mid-2020s.

In the opening statements of the study, the NASA authors made strong references to the threat asteroids pose – along with the fact a large amount of NEOs remain undiscovered – as an emphasis on supporting of such a mission from an Earth protection standpoint.

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

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

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

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

As far as potential NEAs to visit, the Flexible Path presentation pointed to a mission to Near Earth Object 1999AO10 as a candidate, requiring a mission launch date of January 2, 2026.

The NEO 1999AO10 deep space mission would last 155 days, around half of the mission length for the alternative candidate mentioned in the Flexible Path approach – 304 days – for NEO 2001 GP2.

Each mission allocated 14 days for the crew to conduct investigations and EVAs at the asteroid.

Tweaking The Current Plan:

NASA’s current Exploration Plan is mainly undefined, mainly due to uncertainty in the long term budget profile. However, the opening two missions for SLS and Orion have been documented via the CONOPS (Concept of Operations) and Design Reference Mission (DRM) presentations, as acquired by L2 and reported by this site.

The new SLS is currently targeting a debut launch in its Block 1 configuration in December, 2017, on what is known as Exploration Mission -1 (EM-1) – an uncrewed validation flight of the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) tasked with lofting Orion enroute to 7-10 day mission around the Moon.

The next mission currently manifested is for 2021, known as the EM-2 flight – a near-repeat of EM-1. However, for this flight, a crew of four will ride in Orion, venturing into Deep Space for the first time in decades.

The Design Reference Mission (DRM) documentation notes EM-2 to be a CLO (Crewed Lunar Orbit) flight, given the astronauts will spend three to four days orbiting our nearest neighbor, as opposed to heading directly home after passing around the Moon.

With the new asteroid mission officially scheduled for “as soon as” 2021, it is believed NASA planners will aim to take advantage of EM-2′s CLO profile, by “simply” adding the content of the asteroid rendezvous to the days the crew will spend near the Moon.

For the realigned EM-2, a 2019 mission is required to hunt down and capture the asteroid that would then be placed in the vicinity of the Moon within two years, a plan believed to be based around a proposal from the Keck Institute for Space Studies (KISS). A full mission outline article will be in the coming days.

The 2019 mission would require the launch of an Asteroid Retrieval Spacecraft (ARS) via an Atlas V in its 551 configuration, setting sail for an asteroid that would small enough and relatively close by.

The KISS approach notes such a mission could involve “between two and six years” – dependant on size and location of the asteroid.

This key parameters will determine the schedule, as NASA teams begin their hunt for a candidate asteroid. NASA managers will hold the option to move the mission further down the schedule, which would in return EM-2 back to its original plan.

Technology and Procedures Already To Hand:

With six years to go until the planned launch of the ARS, and potentially eight years until the launch of a realigned EM-2, the teams will be pushed hard to meet the challenge outlined in the FY14 Budget Proposal. However, a number of key technologies and mission procedures already exist.

For the ARS, the launch vehicle cited by the KISS approach is already available, along with the Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) technology that would be used to send the ARS to rendezvous with the asteroid, prior to dragging it to a location – likely a Lagrange point – near the Moon.

Californian company Aerojet recently promoted the use of their current Solar Electric Propulsion technology as an enabler for NASA’s deep space aspirations – the same technology which enjoyed a staring role in the rescue of the Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite (AEHF-1).

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

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

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

While these motors can look forward to providing positional stability for upcoming satellites, along with long-distance trips with deep space spacecraft – a role Aerojet’s electric propulsion has successfully carried out on a huge range of spacecraft – a potential marriage between SEP and NASA’s exploration missions is something Aerojet are more than happy to work on.

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

Also, a large amount of training has already been conducted for when the astronauts meet the asteroid. This work has been conducted via the NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) missions, which took place at the Aquarius underwater habitat in Key Largo, Florida.

Although the training related to a full scale asteroid mission, including the use of habitats and a Multi Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV), the protocols and procedures – including the use of NASA’s Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) – will provide mission planners with a very useful baseline.

For the proposed mission, the ARS will arrive at the asteroid, before deploying a giant telescoping “plunger” to capture and encase the space rock, with the pair then heading back to the designated area near the Moon.

Click here for other NEO/NEA Articles: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/neo/

The Orion crew would then launch via the SLS and arrive at the ARS with its captured friend, allowing for the astronauts to conduct a short distance EVA.

Procedures for conducting EVAs from Orion have also been practised back in 2010, via a series of EVA egress/ingress tests on a full-scale mock-up of the Orion crew module in the large Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL) at the Johnson Space Center.

According to the Joint EVA NBL Orion Mockup (JENOM) test overview document – available for download on L2 – “The primary purpose of (Test 8 of the EVA Systems Project Office (ESPO)) (was) to understand the Orion design implementation for the side hatch and internal layout.

“The test (helped) provide information to the design teams (on) mobility needs, location of vehicle interface element umbilicals on the (EV) suit, and understanding of umbilical based operations in order to assist with design maturity.”

As outlined in NASA’s notional video of the asteroid mission, the crew would exit the Orion via the side hatch, prior to setting up a pole that would be used to translate across the ARS to the asteroid.

They would then peel back part of the bagging surrounding the rock, allowing for hands on access. Photo documentation would take place, along with the use of tools to chip away at the rock, allowing for sample collections.

A number of these procedures have already been tested during NEEMO missions.

Following their visit with the asteroid, the Orion would depart from the ARS and head back to Earth for a nominal re-entry into the Pacific Ocean.

The Follow On Missions:

The new mission is set to become a pathfinder for future missions to larger asteroids in deep space.

However, that in itself will require another leap forward in mission capabilities, with evaluations into sending what would be a considerable amount of hardware to a NEA destination still under evaluation.

These evaluations range from multi-launch SLS campaigns as the baseline approach, to the use of an Exploration Platform or Gateway – as the centrepiece of several exploration pathways – for the alternative option.

A several month internal study – a high level effort within the ongoing NASA exploration roadmap evaluation drive and specific to the Gateway – was conducted and subsequently stalled at the political level.

The study related to a Gateway that would be built at the International Space Station (ISS) and then sent to Earth Moon Lagrange point (EML2) via Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP). This Gateway would provide a staging post for missions to the Lunar Surface, NEAs, Mars and potentially other destinations.

For a NEA specific mission, Boeing outlined a conceptual approach involving the EML2 Gateway at last year’s Global Exploration Workshop. Under this Boeing plan, Solar Electric Propulsion would be used by NASA for NEA missions – a technology also cited by Aerojet.

This new propulsion system would be gradually developed over the next 10 years, although a demonstration flight would be capable of readiness by 2014.

A NASA docking system, Spacecraft boom, triple panel SEP module, Solar Array mast, and Alpha-joint (similar to the ISS’ Beta joint) would be developed between 2016 and 2020 – all leading to the creation of a 320 kW SEP operational spacecraft for NEA missions by 2022.

Under the Boeing notional plan, a 2024 NEA mission to NEA2008EV5 would depart not from Earth but from the ISS-EP at the Earth-Moon L2 (EML2) point.

Using the new SEP technology, transit from the EML2 point to the NEA of interest would take approximately 100 days with SLS’ third stage used to “kick start” the stage and shorten the trip. SLS would be involved with the Gateway plan.

Investigations at the NEA would last for approximately 30 days before a ~235-day trip back to Earth for a total mission duration of roughly one year.

This alternative plan is internally considered as the most exciting option within NASA circles for missions later in the 2020s, after the newly announced mission.

(Images: L2 Content, NASA, NEEMO and Boeing)

(NSF and L2 are providing full exploration roadmap level coverage from Orion and SLS to ISS and COTS/CRS/CCDEV, to European and Russian vehicles.)

(Click here to join L2: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/ )

No related posts.

Pad 39B:

Shuttle Discovery was the last crewed vehicle to launch from Pad 39B, as she rose into the Florida night sky during her STS-116 launch at the end of 2006.

With all the remaining Shuttle missions reverting to the use of Pad 39A, engineers began converting 39B for the Constellation Program (CxP), with the first notable change relating to the construction of three giant lightning protection system towers.

Local firm Ivey Construction of Merritt Island, Florida won the $28m contract to build the three 600 ft high towers that were intended to surround 39B and reduce the probability of a direct lightning strike to the Ares I and Ares V vehicles and associated launch equipment during processing and other activities prior to flight.

The self-supporting structural steel towers and an overhead wire system with associated conductors rose out of the ground as huge pylons, with five levels for worker access – the highest being Level E at 482ft – rising yet further to a total height of 594ft.

Access to the five levels can be reached by stairs or via the ‘man lift’ that travels up the side of the tower.

Along with the towers are nine large downconducters, placed around the complex, which act as anchor points for the massive cables that stretch across the lightning towers.

Following the work on the foundations of the towers, the pylons began to rise out of the ground, with one of the world’s largest cranes – the Manitowoc 21000, costing $1m a month to hire – dominating the space coast skyline, as it hoisted segments next to the pad.

The towers were completed ahead of one final swansong with a Shuttle stack, as Endeavour paid a short visit to 39B during her STS-400 role as the Launch On Need (LON) support for Atlantis’ STS-125 mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope.

This was the only post-RTF mission not to include the “safe haven” of the International Space Station (ISS) – as such, Endeavour was tasked with being ready to launch within days of a major issue being found with Atlantis during her mission.

With Endeavour sat on pad as Atlantis successfully launched on her flagship mission to Hubble from 39A, this period marked the 39B’s final role with Shuttle. Endeavour eventually launched from 39A on her STS-127 mission, following the standdown from her rescue support requirement.

Pad 39B then transitioned into the Constellation Program, marked by Ares I-X rolling to the pad out for its test launch in 2009.

This was supposed to be the first of two test launches (I-X and/or I-X Prime, I-Y), ahead of the debut of the Ares I missions. However, Ares was cancelled via the demise of CxP.

With the realignment towards the Space Launch System, most of the Pad’s past and future transition proved to be a nice fit for the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV), with the giant towers ably protecting all variants of SLS along with the “clean pad” scenario allowing for the monster rockets to roll up to the pad just as Ares had planned.

However, Pad-B’s Shuttle configuration still stood in contrast to the forward-looking plan of the now-defunct Constellation Program as well as a building plan for LC-39B: the desire to render it a clean surface pad with the long-term goal of being able to support multiple vehicles and missions – an idea that fits into the overall KSC infrastructure update plan for a 21st Century launch complex.

With this in mind, controlled demolition of Pad B’s Shuttle structures began in September, 2010 – with deconstruction work commencing on the Rotating Service Structure (RSS), ahead of the removal – block by block – of the Fixed Service Structure (FSS), rendering Pad B a clean pad for the first time in over 30 years, back when the pad hosted the giant Saturn V launch vehicles.

Preparations for the modern day Saturn V – the SLS – have proceeded to plan, allowing for a mix of the old and the new, as renovations took place on infrastructure such as the Water Tower – which is used to holds hundreds of thousands of gallons of water, in turn providing the required rush of water to supply the Sound Suppression System, used to protect the launch vehicle from acoustical energy reflected from the platform during lift-off.

SLS’ new Mobile Launcher – a platform and FSS that is being converted from its Ares I role to that required for the HLV – made the 4.2 mile journey to 39B in 2011, allowing for testing of the structural response of the ML during rollout, structural clearance, and HVAC (Air Conditioning) pressurization.

The ML was powered up via the pad’s power supplies, prior to being transported back to the park site via the Crawler Transporter – which is also being upgraded for SLS.

Following the visit of the ML, work has continued at the pad, with structures starting to rise out of the clean pad’s surface once again.

Under the guidance of the Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO) Program office, along with Center Operations at KSC, 39B now has a steel and concrete structure that houses two elevators and the associated machinery.

These elevators will provide access from the pad surface to the “0″ level, or deck, of the new ML. The two new traction elevators replaced a single old hydraulic elevator was left on the pad surface from the Shuttle days.

Pad 39B has also enjoyed modifications to the Pad Terminal Connection Room, replacing the old Halon fire system with a new sprinkler system, and removal of Shuttle’s hypergolic fuels and the oxidizer farms – although the the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen spheres remain. They have undergone repairs, sandblasting and have been repainted.

Interfaces on the ML’s utility platform were modified, with evaluations continuing on the configuration of the array of connections that will hook up between the ML and the SLS rocket.

While repair work was conducted on concrete slopes and surfaces around the pad, the iconic flame trench – which still contains some of the bricks that were scorched from Saturn V launches – will also be upgraded via a new design that will be worked on in 2015.

Future work at the Pad may still include the installation of a roller coaster, built in-situ at 39B.

This option won the trade study for Ares I’s Emergency Egress System (EES) – required to transport astronauts and/or pad crews to safety in the event of a serious problem with the launch vehicle.

No decision has been made on SLS’ EES at this time, although the roller coaster option was designed with the Ares – now SLS – ML in mind, with the ability for the ML to roll up to the pad, prior to hooking up with the massive structure that would use enclosed cars to race astronauts and/or pad crews to a protective bunker.

Other work that is set to take place includes refurbishing or modifying the piping that will interface with the ML and replacing the water lines and unused piping beneath the pad, in an area called the catacombs.

The liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen and other interfaces on the pad or pad structures will be updated, while the pad structure in the Environment Control Room, ducts will be removed, and a new system will be designed and built to replace the old Shuttle-related equipment.

(Images: Via NASA and L2 content from L2′s SLS specific L2 sections, which includes, presentations, videos, graphics and internal – interactive with actual SLS engineers – updates on the SLS and HLV, available on no other site.)

(L2 is – as it has been for the past several years – providing full exclusive SLS and Exploration Planning coverage. To join L2, click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)

Use the below social media options to share this article.

No related posts.

ATK Five Segment Testing:

Since increasing the length from a four segment Reusable Solid Rocket Motor (RSRM) used by the Space Shuttle – to 154 foot long five segment booster that will ride with the Space Launch System (SLS) – a mid-span support was deemed necessary to decrease the sag in the test motor as it finds itself firing in the “usual” horizontal position.

The tests – originally for the Ares 1 first stage – have been realigned ahead of their use on the SLS, which will debut at the end of 2017 as the Block 1 configuration.

This initial capability Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) will consist of a core stage using four Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne (PWD) RS-25Ds – formerly used by the Shuttle Program – two ATK five segment Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) and an Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS), highly likely to be a Delta Cryogenic Second Stage (DCSS).

Three static fire tests have already taken place on the five segment boosters, all with a single span located in the middle of the booster.

The most recent test – DM-3 – took place in 2011 and was the last in a series of development motors to be tested. It was also the most heavily instrumented solid rocket motor in NASA history, with a total of 37 test objectives measured through more than 970 instruments.

(Image taken from the amazing 220mb super slow-mo DM-3 Five Seg Motor Ground Test Video – available in L2 – LINK).

The previous test – DM-2 in 2010 – was carried out with a total of 53 design objectives, measured through more than 760 instruments. For that test, the motor was cooled to 40 degrees F – a “cold motor” test – in order to measure solid rocket motor performance at low temperature, as well as to verify design requirements of new materials in the motor joints.

The DM-3 incorporated several performance-based improvements to the designs of the first two development motors. Additionally, the core of DM-3 was heated to 90 degrees Fahrenheit for this full-duration firing to verify the motor’s performance at high temperatures.

ATK are already deep into preparations for the first qualification firing of the five segment booster, with QM-1.

It is expected that the five segment solid motor will be used on all SLS flights until at least the middle of the 2020s, with source information noting SLS managers have the option to launch up to 10 missions using the current five segment booster design.

QM Mid Span Supports:

QM-1 – and the follow on QM-2 – will both be fired at ATK Propulsion Systems base in Promontory, Utah. However, there will be a visual difference from previous firings, with the debut of two mid-span supports to further decrease motor sag to more closely simulate a vertical flight motor.

After ATK determined the need for a second mid-span support, they contracted with the same vendors that fabricated the first mid-span.

The three major vendors for mid-span support include Major Tool and Machine from Indiana, Force Measurement Systems (FMS) of California, and Specialized Analysis Engineering (SAE) of Utah.

The mid-span structures include two uprights bolted to the floor and a structure that spans the width of the static test motor and supports the weight taken up by the slings during build-up and testing.

The engineers at FMS manufactured the structure load cells and flexures used to support the sling, while the SAE team designed and built the control system for the support.

SAE are currently in the process of wiring and programming the control system - just as they did with the first mid-span support used for the DM static test motors.

The system uses a custom programmable logic controller to control the electric motors and also receive load cell data.

“These suppliers have a long-standing history with ATK and have once again proven their worth as deserving partners. We appreciate their ability to perform as required,” noted Fred Brasfield, vice president, Next-generation Booster.

“These vendors have supplied the components and structures needed to help obtain necessary data from our test motors.”

QM-1 Delay:

Preparations for the upcoming QM-1 test began with the first casting operation of the Forward Segment back in July 16, 2012 at ATK’s Promontory facility.

Casting operations continued without issue, with the Center/Forward segment casting operations beginning in August of 2012.

SLS L2 Update Section did, however, note a few issues that had to be worked during the development schedule, one relating to the replacement of the ultrasonic sensor instrumentation in the QM-1 nozzle, and another involving the new over/under speed protection (GTx) feature of the Electrical Ground Support Equipment (EGSE).

“A continuity failure of one sensor following nozzle assembly initiated an investigation revealing out of spec connector assemblies to several sensors. The decision has been made to re-terminate all 20 ultrasonic sensor connectors and re-assemble the Nozzle,” noted the updates.

“The second issue – specific to the GTx – relates to flight acceptance testing. The early development of the GTx allows multiple hot-fire exposures prior to deployment to KSC and buys down significant flight schedule risk. Initial testing of the GTx revealed an unacceptable sensitivity to noise, which will required modification.

Click here for another Solid Rocket Booster/Motor Articles: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/srb/

The GTx design was then verified during a hot-fire dry-run known as the Flight Control Test -2 (FCT-2), which took place earlier this year.

This key avionics and controls test included a “hot fire” of the fully integrated heritage TVC (Thrust Vector Control), the new SLS booster avionics subsystem and new EGSE.

The test – of which an impressive video was made available – showed the TVC’s systems purring into life during the FCT-2 countdown, prior to the actual firing of the SRM Ignition Initiators at T-0, simulating an actual lift-off. This was followed by the TVC systems gimballing the nozzle (not in place) on the hot fire aft skirt.

“The FCT-2 test marked a definite milestone for ATK and NASA’s SLS program,” added Mr Brasfield. “Working with Marshall, we have designed and developed a modern system and common interface that allows for multiple uses of the same equipment at all necessary locations for both qualification and operational phases of the program, greatly reducing complexity and costs.”

QM-1 had already slipped from its initial schedule of conducting the static test in May by the time of the FCT-2 success, with the latest estimate showing the firing of the QM-1 will be no sooner than November.

The slip to the end of the year is in part related to an issue with the aft segment of the QM-1, which was found to have about a two foot-wide area where propellant had debonded from the inside of the segment wall.

After some analysis – which found no voids in the actual propellant – NASA decided to ask ATK to scrap the segment and cast a replacement.

The delay holds no impact on the schedule for the second static test – QM-2 – or the schedule towards the EM-1 flight in 2017, due more than a year of margin.

(Images: Via ATK and L2 content from L2′s SLS specific L2 sections, which includes, presentations, videos, graphics and internal – interactive with actual SLS engineers – updates on the SLS and HLV, available on no other site.)

(L2 is – as it has been for the past several years – providing full exclusive SLS and Exploration Planning coverage. To join L2, click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)

Use the below social media options to share this article.

Related posts:

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

MAF History:

Michoud has played a vital role in building rocket hardware for many decades, best known to the current generation for its assembly of the large External Tanks that flew with the Space Shuttle.

Its history ranges as far back as the 1940s, building planes and landing craft during World War II, before switching its focus to building engines for Sherman and Patton tanks for use during the Korean War.

MAF entered the rocket business in 1961, when NASA tasked the facility with the construction of first stages for the Saturn IB and Saturn V launch vehicles, prior to their shipment by barge to the Kennedy Space Center (KSC).

Undergoing a similar transition to what it is today, Michoud had its attention switched to the construction and assembly of the Shuttle External Tanks.

The first of the 136 tanks, ET-1 for STS-1, rolled out of the door in June, 1979 – one of only two tanks to have its thermal protection system foam covered in white paint.

The latter period of its ET production role was filled with both tragedy and success, as STS-107′s External Tank became the focus of investigations into the loss of Columbia, after it shed a large piece of foam from its bipod ramp, critically damaging the ill-fated flagship.

The painful Return To Flight efforts resulted in major modifications to the External Tank, placing new demands on Michoud’s workforce, only for the region to be decimated by 2005′s Hurricane Katrina.

With large numbers of the MAF workforce displaced – some with their homes completely destroyed – the downstream ET manifest was under severe strain, just as NASA were hoping to pick up the pace on ISS assembly missions to complete the Shuttle’s final major role in space.

Under the leadership of key managers, such as the highly respected Wanda Sigur, the workforce rallied, adding shifts and working Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs) to streamline the production practises, all while improving the safety of the tanks.

Their work proved to be successful, as confirmed by the “clean” performance of the ETs during the vast majority of RTF launches.

The MAF workforce managed to keep the ET schedule on track – aided by some misbehaving orbiters extending processing flows at KSC – and even returned one tank back into the mix. ET-122 was set to fly earlier in the program, before being damaged by Katrina. It successfully flew on STS-134 with Endeavour.

However, by the time the Shuttle Program was slowing down, the workforce already knew the promise of transitioning their careers into the Constellation Program (CxP) were dashed. As as result of CxP’s eventual cancellation, the vast majority of the MAF workforce were laid off as the final External Tank headed out into the Gulf of Mexico.

A large number of workers could have seen their careers saved, had it not been for the delays in implementing the plan for a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV), outlined in the 2010 Authorization Act as the flagship of a realigned exploration program.

MAF leaders had hoped for an announcement within a timescale that may have allowed them to save a large number of workers, as was seen in their actions to extend the period prior to handing out WARN notices, several times, before finally losing patience with the politically motivated stalling tactics in Washington DC.

The impact to the facility was severe, as only a small group of skilled workers remained, spending their days removing equipment to make way for a line of Hollywood production companies to use the wide open floor space to film scenes for movies, such as GI Joe 2 (Retaliation).

MAF Fightback:

Signs of Michoud returning to life were small, with the BP oil company taking control of Building 451 – otherwise known as the LH2 proof test building – to store the blow out preventer that caused the Gulf oil spill in 2010, while Boeing utilized the MAF machinery to build a small pathfinder tank.

The last remaining ET – an old and usable LWT named ET-94 – was moved into storage in Building 103, while several part tanks – such as ET-139, which provided a test bed for work surrounding the Stringer crack issue suffered by STS-133′s ET-137 near to the end of the program – were sold to scrap merchants.

Elsewhere in the facility, work began on Orion, resulting in the construction of the Exploration Flight Test -1 (EFT-1) vehicle, which has since shipped to KSC for outfitting. All future Orions will be born at Michoud, with work on the Exploration Mission -1 (EM-1) Orion scheduled to start as early as next year.

Orion will also gain a neighbor in the form of new Dream Chasers, following a deal between Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) and Lockheed Martin that included MAF in the role of building the composite airframe for new spacecraft that will be launched atop of an Atlas V.

However, the bulk of MAF’s future work will be on the huge SLS rocket, with large-scale efforts now taking place to modify several buildings to host the fabrication and assembly of the HLV at the facility.

Multiple projects are scheduled through 2014, involving modification and construction projects in Buildings 103, 110, 114, 115, 131 and 451.

Under the watchful eye of ET-94 in Building 103, Michoud’s main manufacturing building – encompassing 42 acres under its roof – is being modified to welcome the Robotic Weld Tool 3. Scheduled for completion by May, the tool will be used to make dome components for SLS, and will be known as the Enhanced Robotic Weld Tool when in operation.

This large factory floor space will also host the segmented ring tool, dedicated to fabricating L and Y rings for the SLS vehicle. These rings are used to make barrel-to-barrel and dome-to-barrel connections within the SLS rocket’s structure.

The tooling installation work – which has already seen circular steel structures rise out of the floor – should be completed this month, with test and checkout procedures to follow immediately.

Repurposing the facility since the demise of the Constellation Program can be seen in Building 115, as engineers modify the high-bay manufacturing building by installing weld tooling that will fabricate the barrel components for SLS. Known as the Vertical Weld Center, the friction-stir-weld tool will stand about three stories tall once fully assembled. The work is scheduled for completion in June.

Over in Building 110, the demolition work on Cells B and C – which once hosted fully constructed External Tanks for TPS foam application – has been completed.

Preparations are in now full swing for the installation of the Vertical Assembly Center (VAC), a location where dome assemblies and the tank barrel sections will be joined together to complete the “dry structure assemblies”.

This huge piece of hardware should be in place by March, 2014 – becoming the world’s largest friction stir weld machine.

In Building 131 – previously used for the cleaning and primer application for the Shuttle ETs – repurposing work is taking place enable it to host massive SLS sections for foam application.

Because SLS is so large, the roofline of the building is being extended north. Engineers are currently breaking up the tarmac in front of the building and adding to the existing foundation in preparation for the building work.

Notably, the SLS stages will depart from MAF without any white paint, despite NASA images showing a “Saturn V” type paint scheme for the monster rocket. As such, SLS will have an “orange” core, with the appearance of a large Shuttle External Tank.

Roofline and foundation extensions are also taking place in Building 451, similar to building 131, allowing for additional space for proof testing of the LH2 tank on SLS’ core stage. Space in the building is being created by removing what is known as the “beer can,” a barrel-shaped structure for holding the structure in place during testing.

While KSC continues its efforts to attract several vehicles to be part of its “multi-user spaceport” aspirations, MAF has already secured its place as a facility that will be birthplace of both commercial and government vehicles for the decades to come.

(Images: Via NASA and L2 content from L2′s ET and SLS specific L2 sections, which includes, presentations, videos, graphics and internal – interactive with actual SLS engineers – updates on the SLS and HLV, available on no other site.)

(L2 is – as it has been for the past several years – providing full exclusive SLS and Exploration Planning coverage. To join L2, click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)

Use the below social media options to share this article.

No related posts.

ASAP Meeting:

The influential body – probably best known for taking a swipe at the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) during calls for an extension of the orbiter’s service life – are a naturally conservative organization.

Although their cautious – and sometimes frosty – attitude towards commercial crew has been thawing of late, the ASAP’s focus on crew safety ranges across all of NASA’s human space flight activities, including the test programs, such as Orion’s first trip into space during the Exploration Flight Test (EFT-1).

With their opening meeting of 2013 hosted at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), the panel were taken on a tour of the ongoing modifications to the spaceport, as it attempts to transition from Shuttle operations to a launch complex capable of hosting both government and commercial vehicles.

“Modifications to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) are in process and fixed decks are being replaced with moveable decks to deal with different types of boosters. This puts KSC in position to launch the next generation of launch systems,” reported the ASAP in a letter to General Bolden, dated February 11.

“The ground system development is ongoing – the processing facility, the VAB, the mobile launchers, etc.”

However, despite this future capability, KSC still only has one new launch vehicle as a confirmed tenant, the Space Launch System (SLS).

With only one Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF) securing a commercial spacecraft – Boeing’s CST-100 at present – KSC is under pressure to find uses for its numerous facilities, with a recent report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) warning unused buildings at NASA facilities may have to be removed to save on costs.

Even the EFT-1 mission, scheduled for 2014, is only using part of KSC’s Operations & Checkout (O&C) building for Orion processing, ahead of its launch from next door’s Cape Canaveral on a Delta IV Heavy with a Delta Cyrogenic Second Stage (DCSS).

This Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) is also set to ride with Orion during its first two missions with the SLS, known as Exploration Mission -1 and -2 (EM-1, EM-2).

Citing challenges, the ASAP noted concerns with the differences between the ICPS for the EFT-1 launch on the Delta IV-H and its two missions riding with the SLS – likely focused on the integration challenges for when the ICPS moves away from its parent launch vehicle to be part of the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV).

The biggest challenge is a more obvious concern, relating to the budget uncertainty between EFT-1 and EM-1.

“With regard to schedule, EFT-1 is on track. The highest risk item for EFT-1 is the booster, which has an interim cryogenic propulsion stage (ICPS) that will be different from EM-1,” added the ASAP meeting minutes. “The highest risk item for the program is the near-term budget for EM-1. It is not the total cost that is the problem, but the phasing of the expected funding.”

EFT-1′s primary goal is to test Orion’s heat shield, the first high energy return of a spacecraft intended for human crews since the Apollo era.

EFT-1 is set to mimic a large part of the expected stresses Orion will endure when it completes Beyond Earth Orbit (BEO) missions, with the results a major data point for Orion’s Critical Design Review (CDR) in 2015. The panel classed the heat shield testing as “the key technology driver.”

The panel’s discussions with the Exploration Systems team at KSC also confirmed they still need to find some mass savings, an ominous throwback to the Constellation Program (CxP) days, when engineers battled to shed mass off the Orion spacecraft, due to performance issues with the Ares 1 launch vehicle.

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

The “mass control” effort is highly unlikely to be related to the Block 1 SLS – with its 70mT capability believed to be an underestimate of its actual performance – and more to do with Orion’s historical challenges with its own mass after launch and ahead of re-entry.

The ASAP also mentioned the ongoing evaluations into the Emergency Egress System (EES) as a technical concern.

“In terms of engineering, the two principal technical concerns are mass control (approximately 4000 to 5000 lbs. in the total system that they want to remove) and the pad emergency egress system,” continued the overview to General Bolden, which also praised the work that has taken place on Orion, despite over $1 billion being spent over the many years it has been in development.

“Mr. Daniel Dumbacher, Deputy Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems, started his briefing with an interesting point: the hardware for ESD, especially with regard to the Orion, goes back to 2008, e.g., the abort motor testing, the air-bag drop testing, etc. Most importantly, within the past year, NASA has had very successful Orion environmental and parachute testing.

“There has been a great deal of progress on this program that the ASAP feels is vital to the nation’s space interests.”

ASAP Chair, VADM (Ret.) Joseph Dyer, agreed that the program is challenged by the budget constraint, but remains impressed with the progress.

“Because ESD is “level funded,” this drives some constraints and inefficiencies and challenges the program team,” he noted. “Overall, they are doing very well and it is an impressive undertaking.”

(Images: L2 and NASA)

(NSF and L2 are providing full exploration roadmap level coverage, available no where else on the internet, from Orion and SLS to ISS and COTS/CRS/CCDEV, to European and Russian vehicles.)

(Click here to join L2: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/ )

Related posts:

1. Orion PDR delay could stretch into 2010The requirement to carry out an additional Design Analysis Cycle...

SLS Core Material:

In 1998 – after a challenging four year development program that kick-started NASA’s knowledge about Al-Li alloys – STS-91 flew the first SLWT.

This tank had been re-engineered to use Al-2195 and Al-2090 extensively, which were stronger and lighter than the Al alloys on LWT (Al-2219, etc).

Together with the first use of an orthogrid structure – on the LH2 tank’s barrel – this lightened the structure and improved payload, especially to the high-inclination orbit of the International Space Station (ISS).

However, those new alloys were also more brittle and difficult to weld, and experience showed a maintenance overhead. All of the dome and ogive sections were reverted back to aluminum over three subsequent revisions – first flown on STS -116, -119, and -130 respectively.

At the same time, SLWT experience allowed the LH2 orthogrid to be further optimized and lightened from STS-119.

But the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) wasn’t finished with problems with Al-Li – the intertank stringers which failed during STS-133 tanking and had to be reinforced, were Al-2090.

Notably, SLS will move completely away from the stringer design for its intertank, which carries much higher loads supporting a larger LO2 tank, an upper stage, payload and PLF – all at higher G’s, and with greater aero and bending loads than the ET.

The new design will have integrally machined stiffeners instead of riveted sheet metal stringers.

Similarly, the components which failed during a recent pressure test of the Exploration Flight Test -1 (EFT-1) Orion flight article were also Al-2195.

Meanwhile, a Shell Buckling Knockdown Factors (SBKF) project has been running at NASA Langley since 2007, funded by the SLS Advanced Development Office since Q3 FY12.

Launch vehicles need to allow substantial margins to avoid their tanks, intertanks and interstages buckling during launch. Rules for this were set by experiments in the sixties, but the state-of-the-art in analysis and construction has moved on a long way since then.

The engineering team are re-writing the rules for large vehicles via a combination of analysis and experimental verification, leading to a 2011 “can crush” test where they used a million pounds of force to buckle an “External-Tank-like Test Article”, which was 8.4m in diameter and 6.1m tall.

The team has already produced a first draft of their guidelines. In addition, since early 2012, they have been working closely with the SLS team on design of the core.

It is in this light that the SLS program recently reported a wholesale switch from Al-2195 to Al-2219 on the core. This “was based on a trade study that reduced payload mass by 3 t,” – taken from project reserves – “but that will result in approximately $30 million per flight savings.”

L2 sources confirm that Al-2195′s brittleness was the limiting factor when trying to beef up the structure for SLS.

Orthogrids – or possibly isogrid (as shown in the image to the left) – on the tank barrel are machined from flat plates, leaving stiffening ribs that ideally are tall (for strength, or more accurately, stiffness), allowing them to be thin (for lightness).

However, the ET was already using the thickest plate that could survive being formed to the tank’s 8.4m diameter.

Al-2219 is less brittle, so they can use thicker plate which can be reliably formed, and the thicker orthogrid actually results in a lighter structure overall.

Information also notes that the SBKF project has also been doing preliminary work on a new alloy. AL-2050 adds magnesium for an Al-Mg-Li mix, and “is already used extensively in several commercial aircraft”. This promises plates and orthogrids three times thicker than Al-2195 – up to six inches – with weight savings of as much as 20-30 percent.

This effort has been spun off into a Small Business Innovation Research project “to investigate material properties and structural design optimization for heavy lift LV cryotanks”.

It is possible that one day this could become the basis of a Super Light Weight upgrade to SLS.

(Images: Via NASA, TerraBuilder, Inc and L2 content from L2′s SLS specific L2 section, which includes, presentations, videos, graphics and internal – interactive with actual SLS engineers – updates on the SLS and HLV, available on no other site.)

(L2 is – as it has been for the past several years – providing full exclusive SLS and Exploration Planning coverage. To join L2, click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)

No related posts.