Posted by drdave on November 25, 2009
A Russian Proton / Breeze M launch vehicle lifted off from Baikonur at 7:19 AM Phoenix time 24 November. 9 hours and 12 minutes later, the Breeze M released the Eutelsat W7 communications satellite in a Geo Stationary Orbit. International Launch Services (ILS) was responsible for the mission. The 5,627 kg W7 satellite was built by Thales Alenia Space and has a 15 year life expectancy.
Ignition. Credit: www.zenite.nu |
Liftoff. Credit: www.zenite.nu |
Posted in Commercial Spaceflight, Rocket, Satellites, Space | Tagged: Breeze M, Eutelsat, GEO, Geostationary Earth Orbit, GSO, ILS, International Launch Systems, Proton | Leave a Comment »
Posted by drdave on November 23, 2009
“The Augustine Commission for Dummies”
(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)
Given the intent of the politicians to fight for the funding their districts currently receive from the Constellation Program (CxP – the current program developing the Ares I and Ares V rockets) as well as go begging for more, and given the budget constraints the NASA faces, it is instructive to see where this course will end up. In the Senate, Richard Shelby has announced his intention to fight for Constellation and will try to increase funding to the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida is fighting for Kennedy Space Center and all the jobs and funding there. In the House, Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona and Pete Olson of Texas have dug in their heels and reiterated their backing of the Constellation program (See Space News, 21 November 2009).
All this is taking place against the backdrop of the Augustine Commission’s Final Report, which has made it clear that Ares I is over budget and underpowered. As Jeff Greason said at the Committee deliberations, if Santa Clause gave us Ares I and Ares V tomorrow, we would have to scrap them immediately because they would be too expensive to operate.
The Forum at NasaSpaceFlight has been for many years the authoritative site for information on all things NASA. It has been home to the rebel alliance of NASA and industry engineers that have advocated the in-line shuttle derived launch vehicle for the past four years.
The source of this concern was former Administrator Michael Griffin’s decision in 2005 to replace the dual-launch, in-line shuttle derived architecture recommended by NASA engineers, with his personal choice of a small Ares I and a very large Ares V. Instead of building one rocket using existing shuttle components as Congress had directed, he would build two brand new rockets. This decision came just two weeks before the scheduled release of the NASA document on the Constellation program.
Now, four years later in 2009, when the in-line shuttle derived launch vehicle should have been making its first flight, we are five or six years away from Ares I making its first flight. The Shuttle is scheduled for retirement next year and America will have to buy seats on the Russian Soyuz to get to the International Space Station. And the International Space Station is scheduled for de-commissioning in 2015 and would be de-orbited into the Pacific Ocean.
This reality gave birth to the Augustine Commission and its Final Report. We have covered in detail the findings of the Committee. Now we look to consider the possible outcomes.
Philip Metschan (writing as ‘Phoegh’), a long time contributor to the Forum at NasaSpaceFlight, has produced a marvelous interactive series of graphics available at directlauncher.com that illustrate the options identified by the Augustine Commission.
The Budget and Time Line for these options are given in the following table. Included are destinations beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) and the impact of each option on the existing workforce.
| Option | Extra $ / Yr | Through 2020 | Through 2030 | Moon | NEO | Depot | Workforce |
| Option 1 | $0 | $99 B | $205 B | ? | ? | ? | 50% Loss |
| Option 2 | $0 | $105 B | $200 B | ? | ? | ? | 60% Loss |
| Option 3 | $3 B | $127 B | $275 B | 2025 | ? | ? | 53% Loss |
| Option 4 | $3 B | $121 B | $264 B | 2030 | ? | ? | 70% Loss |
| Option 4B | $3 B | $118 B | $255 B | 2029 | ? | 2026 | 25% Loss |
| Option 5A | $3 B | $128 B | $272 B | ? | ? | ? | 75% Loss |
| Option 5B | $3 B | $123 B | $268 B | 2029 | 2026 | 2024 | 90% Loss |
| Option 5C | $3 B | $120 B | $256 B | 2030 | 2027 | 2025 | 30% Loss |
| Option 5D | $1 B | $116 B | $239 B | 2019 | 2022 | 2028 | 15% Loss |
We can draw the following conclusions, which are illustrated in the Graphics mentioned earlier and shown below. We start with Option 1, the Program of Record (POR – Constellation) and the funding level provided in FY 2010:
Those are the options explored by the Augustine Commission in their Final Report.
Notice, however, that there is one more slide, Option 5D. This is the architecture that was presented to the Augustine Commission during their first public session on 17 June 2009 by the Direct Team. It provides for:
The key here is that the goal of expansion of human civilization into the Solar System is better served, is accomplished sooner, and costs less. Indeed, even without the additional $1 Billion per year, only the extension of the Shuttle operation need be eliminated.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Final Conclusions
Time is of the Essence
Finally, this note about the political realities. First, if a decision is delayed for four to six months while the politicians fight for every last bit of funding they want, the infrastructure on which the Jupiter program builds will be dismantled and Options 4B, 5C and 5D will be eliminated.
Second, Congress will likely decide that the Constellation program as currently envisioned is too costly for what will be developed and not worth throwing more money down the drain. Options 1, 2, 3, 4B and 5A will be eliminated.
Thus, only commercial crew and cargo capabilities will be funded. NASA will be reduced to research and contracting for services. The Marshall Space Flight Facility will have little purpose. And the politicians will lose most of the jobs and funding that their districts currently enjoy.
| Special thanks are in order to Philip Metschan for permission to use screen shots of his presentation. |
Posted in Asteroids, Astronauts, Augustine Commission, Comets, Commercial Spaceflight, Direct, European Space Agency, Human Exploration, International Space Station, Moon, Mars and beyond, NASA, Rocket, Satellites, Space, Space Exploration, Space Settlement | Tagged: Altair, Ares I, Ares V, Ares V Lite, Augustine Commission, Deep Space, Direct, EML-1, EML2, ESA, ESAS, European Space Agency, Exploration Systems Architecture Study, Future of Space Exploration, Gabrielle Giffords, House, International Space Station, ISS, Jupiter, Jupiter 130, Jupiter 241, Jupiter 246, Lagrange, Mars, Moon, NASA, Near Earth Object, NEO, Option 5D, Orion, Phobos, Richard Shelby, Senate, Space, Space Shuttle, Vision for Space Exploration, VSE, William Nelson | 6 Comments »
Posted by drdave on November 22, 2009
At 10:33 PM Phoenix time, we have eight (8) minutes and counting until a planned hold at T minus 4 minutes in the launch of the Atlas 5 carrying the Intelsat 14 satellite.
Intelsat 14 under construction. |
T minus 8 Minutes. |
Launch is scheduled beginning at 10:50 PM Phoenix time. Weather is satisfactory.
We have a new T minus zero scheduled at 11:15 PM Phoenix time. Weather is green through the window. Extended hold due to reprogramming the flight computer (to take into account balloon data) taking longer than expected.
Weather Balloon Profile. |
Wind shear aloft. |
And the weather information updates are taking a long time. New launch time is 11:35 PM.
Wind shear aloft is a problem. Flight profile would not be good. A new balloon has been launched, and we are awaiting a new launch time.
And the weather aloft has now pushed the launch back to 11:55 PM Phoenix time. The US Air Force Range has approved the change. It is going to be a late night for all concerned.
Eye Candy Details. |
More Details, at T minus 4 minutes and holding for weather. |
The latest word from ULA is that “Things are improving with regard to developing a new flight program. They’re going to have one more shot to create a new program if this one doesn’t work, that will take us to the end of the window.”
All of this is based on the changing wind profiles aloft.
Weather aloft has improved. The launch director is polling all systems prior to coming out of the hold.
… and we are GO for LAUNCH!
T minus 3:48 and counting. |
Ignition. |
Launch. |
Ascent. |
Animation – Centaur Burn. |
Mid Course Correction. |
All systems are go. We are on the way to Geo Stationary Orbit.
Good Night All.
Posted in Rocket, Satellites, Space, Technology | Tagged: Atlas 5, Communication Satellite, Geostationary Earth Orbit, Intelsat 14, ULA, United Launch Alliance | Leave a Comment »
Posted by drdave on November 22, 2009
(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)
In Part 1, we looked at the pieces strewn about our living room floor. In Part 2, we examined the Goals and Destinations in Chapter 3.0. And in Part 3, the three current Human Space Flight programs were reviewed (International Space Station, the Space Shuttle and the Constellation Program). In Part 4, we looked at the launch vehicles examined by The Augustine Commission.
Chapter 6 of the Augustine Commission Final Report deals with Program Options and Evaluation. This is one of the many contentious issues commentators have with the Commission. While they did select five possible exploration programs (Chapter 6), and while they did evaluate various launch vehicles (Chapter 5), the Committee seems to have ignored the possibility that different launch vehicles have greater or lesser ability to cover the five exploration programs. This failure may in the end, prove to be disastrous for human space exploration. As we write, the Space Shuttle infrastructure is being actively dismantled. The end result of failing to evaluate the physical infrastructure and the human infrastructure capable of supporting a Shuttle derived architecture may be that the United States is left with no heavy lift human space flight capability for at least the next several decades. We may have surrendered our space faring capability to Europe, China, Russia, India and Japan.
6.1 Evaluation Criteria
As noted by the Commission:
The Committee did not intend that the evaluation would generate a single numerical score; rather, it would provide a basis for comparison across options, highlighting the opportunities and challenges associated with each. Assigning weights to individual figures of merit is within the purview of the ultimate decision-makers.
Three primary evaluation dimensions were identified:
These three dimensions were expanded into 12 criteria for comparing the options.
6.2 Key Decisions and Integrated Options
6.2.1 Key Decisions
1. What should be the future of the Space Shuttle?
2. What should be the future of the International Space Station (ISS)?
3. On what should the next heavy-lift launch vehicle be based?
4. How should crews be carried to low-Earth orbit?
5. What is the most practicable strategy for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit?
6.2.2 Integrated Options
The Committee identified five basic options: One based on the Program of Record (POR – Constellation – Ares I and V, Orion and Altair), and four alternatives. Options 2 and 3 were budget compatable alternatives to the POR. Option 4 was a Moon First program (with two variations), and Option 5 was the Flexible Path (avoiding the gravity well of the Moon).
6.2.3 Methodology for Analyzing the Integrated Options
Two budgets were used. The “Constrained Budget” used the FY 2010 budget, while the “Less Constrained Budget” allowed for an increase by 2014 of $3 Billion per year higher than FY 2010.
6.2.4 Reference Cases of the Entirely Unconstrained Program of Record
The Program of Record was evaluated and found to be a total of $45 Billion over the FY 2010 budget by 2020, wherein it is $5 Billion a year over FY 2010 in 2016 and $7 Billion per year over FY 2010 in 2019.
6.3 Integrated Options Constrained to the FY 2010 Budget
6.3.1 Evaluation of Integrated Options 1 and 2
Option 1 was found to allow for rocket development, but lacked funds for exploration. Option 2 extends the lifetime of the ISS, delays rocket development, and has no funds for exploration.
6.3.2 Examination of alternate budget guidance
The Committee found no alternatives to Options 1 or 2 that were viable under the FY 2010 budget. This conclusion has been disputed.
6.4 Moon First Integrated Options Fit to the Less-Constrained Budget
6.4.1 Evaluation of Integrated Options 3 and 4
Option 3 was to execute the POR under a less constrained budget. The ISS is de-orbited in 2010, and the Shuttle flies the remaining missions into 2011. Human lunar return occurs in the mid 2020s and the lunar base becomes operation late in the decade. An alternate extending ISS to 2020 was found to push these dates out by three to four more years.
Option 4 uses the less constrained budget, scraps Ares I and substitutes commercial crew services by 2016 It extends the ISS to 2020. Ares V is scrapped in favor of a dual-launch Ares V Lite vehicle for lunar missions.
Option 4A retires the Shuttle in 2011, while Option 4B extends the Shuttle to 2015 and develops a Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift vehicle in place of Ares V Lite.
6.4.2 Examination of the key decision on the ISS extension
Given the International Partnerships that have been developed, and the fact that the extension to 2020 would only delay the lunar return by a few years, the Committee found that the extension provides greater value than ending the ISS mission.
6.4.3 Examination of the key decision on Ares V vs. Ares V Lite dual launch
Baseline Ares V has more launch capability than the Saturn V, but current NASA studies show that when used in combination with Ares I, it does not have enough launch capability to robustly deliver the currently planned landing and surface systems to the Moon.
The Committee concluded that Ares V Lite represents less development risk, likely will reduce costs and provides more substantial margin for the lunar mission.
6.4.4 Examination of the key decision on the provision of crew transport to low-Earth orbit
Commercial crew services, based on a high-reliability rocket with a capsule and launch escape system could significantly reduce development costs, as well as lower operating costs.
6.4.5 Examination of the key question on Shuttle extension
The Committee favored early retirement of the Shuttle (2010 or 2011), although they noted several advantages to Shuttle extension to 2015, including up-mass and down-mass capability and workforce retention.
6.5 Flexible Path Integrated Options Fit to the Less-Constrained Budget
6.5.1 Evaluation of Integrated Option 5
Option 5 operates the Shuttle into 2011 and extends the International Space Station mission until 2020. A variety of destinations beyond low earth orbit are possible. The Committee developed three variants of this option.
6.5.2 Examination of the key question on Ares V family vs. Shuttle-derived heavy launcher
While the Shuttle derived in-line launch vehicle (SDLV) with two four-segment solid rocket motors (SRM) and the 8.4 meter external tank (ET) was the 2005 ESAS candidate for the cargo vehicle, it was forced to evolve into the Ares V due to the problems encountered with the underpowered Ares I. For some reason, the Committee decided that in order to match the capabilities of the Ares V, or the Ares V Lite dual-launch mission, that there had to be three SDLV launches. Therefore, operations would be more costly.
This is a clear Committee miss, as the current planned lunar return missions can be accomplished with good margin by a dual-launch SDLV program, thus costing less than the Ares V Lite. There is no need for the enhanced capabilities of the dual-launch Ares V Lite.
6.5.3 Examination of the key question on NASA heritage vs. EELV-heritage super-heavy vehicles
The Committee considers the EELV-heritage super-heavy vehicle to be a way to significantly reduce the operating cost of the heavy lifter to NASA in the long run. It would be a less-capable vehicle, but probably sufficiently capable for the mission. Reaping the long-term cost benefits would require substantial disruption in NASA, and force the agency to adopt a new way of doing business.
6.6 Comparisons Across Integrated Options
6.6.1 Cross-option comparisons
The Flexible Path program (Option 5A) scores more highly than the Baseline (Option 3) on 9 of the 12 criteria outlined in section 6.1 ( See figure 6.6.1-1). The higher rankings include:
6.6.2 Examination of the key question on exploration strategy
Three exploration strategies were examined in Chapter 3. The choice of Mars First was found not to be viable due to technological problems. Two strategies remained:
The Moon first is favorable to lunar science and exploration (although much can be done robotically). The Flexible Path missions explore more of the Solar System, while initially doing less on the Moon. Flexible Path has the advantage of developing infrastructure for deep space exploration, including the moons of Mars and Mars itself. The Committe notes that:
Considering that we have visited and obtained samples from the Moon, but not near-Earth objects or Mars, and also that the Flexible Path develops the ability to service space observatories, the Science Knowledge criterion slightly favors the Flexible Path. Broadly, the more complex the environment, the more astronaut explorers are favored over robotic exploration. In practice, this means that astronauts will offer their greatest value-added in the exploration of the surface of Mars.
Final Scoring
Although the Augustine Commission did not publish a final tally of the scores (for reasons they made clear), the following table does compare and tabulate the scores.
| Option | Description | Science | Safety | Cost | Schedule | NASA / Industry Jobs | US Skills Retention | Exploration Capability | Technology | Space Colony Potential | Commercial Benefit | Public Engagement | international Cooperation | Sustainability | Total |
| 1 | The Status Quo | 0 | 0 | 0 | -2 | -1 | -1 | -2 | -2 | -2 | -1 | -1 | -2 | -1 | -15 |
| 2 | ISS Extension plus Moon | 0 | 0 | 1 | -2 | -1 | -1 | -2 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | -5 |
| 3 | Status quo + $3 B | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -2 | 0 | -3 |
| 4 | Shuttle + Moon | 1 | -1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 4B | Shuttle 2015 + Moon | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
| 5A | Flexible Path + Ares Lite | 2 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| 5B | Flexible Path + Commercial | 2 | -2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 8 |
| 5C | Flexible Path + Jupiter 241 | 2 | -2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 |
Option 5D: We will have more to say about this proposal in our final segment: “Wrapped Up” or “The Augustine Commission for Dummies”.
| Option | Description | Science | Safety | Cost | Schedule | NASA / Industry Jobs | US Skills Retention | Exploration Capability | Technology | Space Colony Potential | Commercial Benefit | Public Engagement | international Cooperation | Sustainability | Total |
| 5D | Flexible Path + Direct | 2 | -2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13 |
Posted in Asteroids, Astronauts, Augustine Commission, Comets, Commercial Spaceflight, Direct, Human Exploration, International Space Station, Moon, Mars and beyond, NASA, Robotic Exploration, Rocket, Satellites, Space, Space Exploration, Space Settlement, Technology | Tagged: Space, Mars, NASA, Moon, Future of Space Exploration, Jupiter, Augustine Commission, NEO, Phobos, Human Space Flight, Direct, Space Shuttle, ISS, International Space Station, ESAS, ESA, European Space Agency, Exploration Systems Architecture Study, EML2, Lagrange, Apollo, Delta, Atlas, Ares I, Ares V, Orion, Rocket, Deep Space, Altair, Ares V Lite, Jupiter 130, Jupiter 241, Jupiter 246, Option 5D | 5 Comments »
Posted by drdave on November 12, 2009
 Credit: NASA Video |
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is an infrared observatory, and a partial successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. JWST does not view visible light because light from the earliest universe has shifted toward the infrared (red shift). Infrared sensitivity is required in order to see further back in time toward the beginning of the universe than either Hubble or ground based observatories.The James Webb Space Telescope is a joint venture between NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA). In all, fifteen countries are making contributions to JWST. The are four main components to the scientific mission:
|
|
JWST is scheduled for launch in 2014 aboard an Ariane 5 rocket. It will take up residence at the Sun-Earth Lagrange point 2 (SEL-2). SEL-2 is 1,500,000 km beyond the Earth from the Sun (the Earth-Moon L2 is 61,500 km beyond the Moon). The location was chosen in order to be able to shield the telescope from the infrared radiation of the Sun and the Earth. Currently, SEL-2 is occupied by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), which was launched 30 June 2001, and the Herschel and Planck observatories, which were launched together on an Ariane 5 on 14 May 2009. The image at left is a cutaway diagram the the Ariane 5 rocket, illustrating how the JWST will fold up inside the payload fairing. With the large screen behind it, the JWST will be about 21 m in width. It will stand about three stories high. The main telescope mirror, which measures 6.5 m in diameter, is too large to launch in one piece. Instead, it consists of 17 individual mirror segments mounted on a frame which will be folded inside the fairing of the Ariane 5 at launch. Once it arrives at SEL-2, it will unfold, as this animation shows. There are four instruments designed to conduct the investigations on board the James Webb Space Telescope:
|
Credit: European Space Agency |
 Credit: NASA
Credit: NASA |
The image at left shows the locations of the four instruments in the Integrated Science Instrument Module (ISIM). Below, the image shows the location of the instrument package within the JWST. The Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) is an imager/spectrograph that covers the wavelength range of 5 to 27 micrometers. The camera provides wide-field broadband imagery, and the spectrograph module provides medium-resolution spectroscopy over a smaller field of view compared to the imager. The nominal operating temperature for the MIRI is 7K. Additional information can be found at the MIRI website, Space Telescope Science Institute. The Near Infrared Camera (NIRCam) is an imager with a large field of view and high angular resolution. The NIRCam covers a wavelength range of 0.6 to 5 micrometers. More on NIRCam. The Near Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec) measures the simultaneous spectra of more than 100 objects in a 9-square-arcminute field of view. This instrument provides medium-resolution spectroscopy over a wavelength range of 1 to 5 micrometers and lower-resolution spectroscopy from 0.6 to 5 micrometers. See the Space Telescope Science Institute information on NIRSpec. The Fine Guidance Sensor (FGS) sensor is used for both “guide star” acquisition and fine pointing. See information from the Space Telescope Science Institute about NIRSpec. |
Recent Events
In October, the NIRSpec Engineering Test Unit (ETU) was completed by Astrium, and will be shipped to the United States later this year for integration testing. For additional information on the ETU, see this article in Space News. Integration testing will allow work to continue while the final NIRSpec instrument is developed. Along with the NIRSpec ETU, a test model of the other European instrument, the Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) will also be delivered.
See also:
The Wikipedia article on JWST.
NASA home page for JWST.
ESA home page for JWST.
CSA home page for JWST.
Make your own Paper Model of the JWST.
YouTube and JWST.
Posted in Astronomy, European Space Agency, Eye Candy, NASA, Robotic Exploration, Rocket, Satellites, Space | Tagged: Ariane 5, Canadian Space Agency, CSA, ESA, European Space Agency, James Webb Space Telescope, JWST, NASA, Space | 2 Comments »
Posted by drdave on November 5, 2009
(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)
In Part 1, we looked at the pieces strewn about our living room floor. In Part 2, we examined the Goals and Destinations in Chapter 3.0. And in Part 3, the three current Human Space Flight programs were reviewed (International Space Station, the Space Shuttle and the Constellation Program).
Chapter 5.0 Launch to Low-Earth Orbit and Beyond
In this section, The Augustine Commission examines launch vehicles. We begin with the opening statement, with which we agree:
Launch to low-Earth orbit is the most energy-intensive and dynamic step in human space exploration. No other single propulsive maneuver, including descent to and ascent from the surfaces of the Moon or Mars, demands higher thrust or more energy or has the high aerodynamic pressure forces than a launch from Earth. Launch is a critical area for spaceflight, and two of the five key questions that guide the future plans for U.S. human spaceflight focus on launch to low-Earth orbit: the delivery of heavy masses to low-Earth orbit and beyond; and the delivery of crew to low-Earth orbit.
5.1 Evaluation methodologies for Launch Vehicles
The Commission used “cost, performance and schedule parameters, as well as safety, operability, maturity, human rating, workforce implications, development of commercial space, the consequences to national security space, and the impact on exploration and science missions”. They note that some of these are quantitative and some are qualitative measures. Evaluations of the claim for each launcher was made and adjusted, and the uncertainty was assessed. Historical bounds were employed where appropriate. Some 70 lower-level metrics were used to construct 13 top level metrics.
5.2 Heavy Lift to Low-Earth Orbit and Beyond
The Commission began by reiterating the Constellation plan to loft about 600 metric tons (mt) per year to low Earth orbit (LEO). By comparison, NASA launched 250 mt per year during Apollo and the International Space Station (ISS) has a mass of about 350 mt.
Figure 5.2-1 listed the five candidates and their lift to LEO (see Launch Vehicles for visuals) and Figure 5.2.1-1 gave Trans Lunar Injection (TLI) with no refueling and with in-space refueling:
Launch Vehicle
LEO
TLI no refueling
TLI in-space refueling
EELV Super Heavy
75 mt
26 mt
55 mt
Directly Shuttle Derived
100-110 mt
35 mt
75 mt
Ares V Lite
140 mt
55 mt
120 mt
Ares V
160 mt
63 mt
130 mt
Ares V plus Ares I
185 mt
71 mt
150 mt
Notice that the Commission has brought the potential of in-space refueling front and center, either as propellant transfer from one spacecraft to another (as in a dual launch Ares V Lite or Jupiter 246), or from a true propellant depot, which would be supplied by commercial contract. However, “the Committee found both of these concepts feasible with current technology, but in need of significant further engineering development and in-space demonstration before they could be included in a baseline design”. Thus, the initial set of evaluations would need to examine the mass that an Earth Departure Stage (EDS) could push through TLI without refueling.
A detailed study of launch reliability of multi-launch missions commissioned by the Committee concluded that at most three critical launches be used. Reasonable chances for success required 90+ days of on-orbit life for an EDS or propellant depots.
Subsequent to Shuttle retirement, the need for NASA to launch 400 to 600 mt to LEO each year would consume much if not all of the existing and planned excess EELV capacity. Further, it would be expensive.
Finally, the Commission notes that heavy lift vehicles “would allow large scientific observatories to be launched, potentially enabling them to have optics larger than the current five-meter fairing sizes will allow. More capable deep-space science missions could be mounted, allowing faster or more extensive exploration of the outer solar system”.
All the foregoing was seen as justification for the development of Heavy Lift vehicles. The Commission then reviewed the choices in the chart above.
Ares V: This is the most capable of the proposed rockets. Together with the Ares I, it can launch 185 mt to LEO, 71 mt through TLI and land 14 tons of cargo only on the lunar surface, or 2 mt of cargo plus crew. Ares V requires expansion of the External Tank (ET) to 10 meters, the development of new 5.5 segment solid rocket motors (SRM), development of a regenerative version of the RS-68 engine and the development of the J2-X second stage engine (modified from the Saturn J2 engine).
Ares V Lite: Ares V Lite is a derivative of the Ares V, but with an LEO payload of 140 mt. This rocket would require the completion of the 5 segment SRM under development for Ares I. The remaining new Ares V components would still require development. For lunar missions, the Ares V Lite would be human-rated and used in the “dual mode”. In single launch it can place 14 mt of cargo on the lunar surface, and with a larger Lander than Ares V, it can land 5 mt of cargo plus crew.
SDLV Side-Mount: The side-mount and the in-line SDLV both use the existing Space Shuttle ET, the 4 segment SRM and the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME). The side-mount replaces the Shuttle with a cargo pod. The Committee combined the side-mount with the in-line variants for purposes of evaluation. They did note, however, that “the side-mount variant is considered an inherently less safe arrangement if crew are to be carried, and is more limited in its growth potential”.
SDLV In-Line The in-line variants are represented by the Jupiter family of rockets, as proposed by the Direct team. The Committee assumed that three Jupiter 241 vehicles would be used for a lunar mission, and that 5 mt of cargo could be landed with crew. No figure was given for a cargo only dual-launch mission, but the report states that more than 20 mt of cargo can be landed by a single Jupiter 241 using in-space refueling. Now, the three launch scenario is peculiar. Perhaps the Commission was trying to replicate the LEO loft mass of a dual Ares V Lite mission (2 x 140 mt). However, that much fuel, lander and crew far exceeds the Constellation Program (CxP) requirements. Furthermore, Ross Tierney, from Direct, has stated that “the right 2-launch Jupiter architecture is actually capable of landing 19mT of useful payload mass on the lunar surface every crew mission…Given that the Ascent Module only consists of about 6.4mT of that, this architecture is actually capable of landing almost the same 14.5mT* cargo modules as CxP are currently planning to land using cargo-only missions”. So we are left with unanswered questions concerning the assumptions and evaluations made by the Commission, not only about SDLV, but the Ares mission architectures.
EELV Super Heavy The Extended Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) is represented by the Atlas 5 Phase 2 Heavy, which consists of the core rocket plus two boosters of the same basic design along with an upgraded common upper stage (to be used by both Atlas and Delta). The common upper stage would use four RL-10 rocket engines, which have a long history of successful flights aboard Titan, Delta and Atlas among others. This configuration is capable of lofting a maximum of 75 mt to LEO. A dual launch configuration with in-space refueling is capable of conducting Flexible Path missions.
Summary of Findings
The Lunar Surface Capabilities of the various systems are compared in the following table:
Launch Vehicle
LEO
Cargo Only
Cargo and Crew
EELV Super Heavy
75 mt
NA mt
NA mt
Directly Shuttle Derived
100-110 mt
14 mt*
5 mt*
Ares V Lite
140 mt
14 mt
5 mt
Ares V plus Ares I
185 mt
14 mt
2 mt
5.3 Crew Launch to Low-Earth Orbit
Crew safety is an overriding issue in human space flight. The safe delivery of crew to LEO and their return is critical. This is the fourth key question (see Part 1) that the Committee examined. The assumed that Orion would be the crew vehicle, and that the launch vehicle would either be government provided and operated, or a commercial service.
Ares I was selected in 2005 as part of the ESAS study, and was expected to be operational in 2012. The Constellation program now projects initial operational capability (IOC) in 2015, and the Committee thinks this will slip further. Both budgetary and design problems have been encountered.
International Transportation was deemed acceptable by the Committee. However, sustained U. S. leadership in space requires domestic crew launch capability.
A human rated EELV was considered by the Commission. An independent study found that the launch of Orion on the Delta IV Heavy was technically feasible, but the long term development and carrying costs offset any savings versus Ares I.
Commercial Transport of crew to LEO is a hot topic. The Committee asked “can a simple capsule with a launch escape system, operating on a high-reliability liquid booster, be made safer than the Shuttle, and comparably as safe as Ares I plus Orion”? A number of factors were considered:
The Committee made several estimates of total costs, and arrived at a preliminary estimate of $5 Billion dollars. Assuming a “less-constrained” NASA budget, a commercial LEO crew transport service could be available by 2016.
Finally, the Committee assessed the risks to the human space flight program associated with commercial crew transport. Such development could distract from the near-term goal of developing commercial cargo capability. The commercial community might fail to deliver a crew transportation system. The fall-back position for NASA would be human rating the Heavy Lift Vehicle. The Committee assumes that the first stage of the HLV will be developed as quickly as possible. We leave the implications of this statement as an exercise for the reader.
5.4 Additional Issues in Launcher Selection
Launch Vehicle Performance and Costing The factors in this section include:
Launcher Reliability The Committee reviewed the historical reliability of the Shuttle, Saturn, Titan, Delta and Atlas programs. Launchers derived from existing systems have shown greater reliability in early stages of development than newly developed systems.
Posted in Asteroids, Astronauts, Augustine Commission, Commercial Spaceflight, Direct, Human Exploration, International Space Station, Moon, Mars and beyond, NASA, Rocket, Satellites, Space, Technology | Tagged: Apollo, Ares I, Ares V, Ares V Lite, Atlas, Augustine Commission, Deep Space, Delta, Direct, ESAS, Exploration Systems Architecture Study, Future of Space Exploration, Human Space Flight, International Space Station, ISS, Jupiter, Jupiter 130, Jupiter 241, Jupiter 246, Lagrange, Mars, Moon, NASA, NEO, Orion, Phobos, Propellant Depot, Propellant Transfer, Rocket, Saturn, Space, Space Shuttle, Titan | 7 Comments »
Posted by drdave on October 30, 2009
Xoie Ready. Credit: Ustream Screen Shot |
We are watching Masten’s Xoie attempt at the Mojave site, live via Ustream. The window began at 9:00 AM PDT this morning. Ready for flight at 10:16 AM. First flight ended successfully after 3 minutes and 2 seconds. Masten is now preparing for the return flight. It is now 11:04 and loading of LOX is underway. Launch. 9 Minutes left in the window. Good Flight. Landed. Now its up to the judges. |
The accuracy for Xoie’s first flight was around 11 inches (28 centimeters). Based on unofficial measurements, it appears as if Xoie did well enough on the second flight to take the top spot away from Armadillo’s Scorpius (average landing accuracy was about 35 inches – 89 centimeters). And indeed that is the Case. Level II Prize – Xoie First, Scorpius Second. And for Level I Prize – Scorpius First, Xombie (Masten) Second.
Jonathon Goff, found often on forum.nasaspaceflight.com, built the 1000 lb thrust engine, and Ian Garcia, guidance engineer, wrote the software.
Xoie Ignition. Credit: Ustream Screen Shot |
Xoie Climb to Altitude. Credit: Ustream Screen Shot. |
Xoie Hovering Over Target. Credit: Ustream Screen Shot |
Xoie Landing After First Flight. Credit: Ustream Screen Shot. |
Xoie Refueling. Credit: Ustream Screen Shot |
Xoie Second Flight. Credit: Ustream Screen Shot. |
Xoie Descending on Second Flight. Credit: Ustream Screen Shot |
Xoie Second Landing. Wins!! Credit: Ustream Screen Shot. |
Posted in Commercial Spaceflight, Robotic Exploration, Rocket, Space, Technology | Tagged: Armadillo Aerospace, Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge, Masten Space Systems, Rocket, Scorpius, Xoie, Xombie | Leave a Comment »
Posted by drdave on October 29, 2009
Ariane V Launch. Credit: European Space Agency – Arianespace |
The sixth Ariane 5 flight of 2009 carried the first satellite launched by Arianespace for Telenor Satellite Broadcasting AS – THOR 6, along with the 32nd spacecraft from the SES group of companies. The previous Ariane 5 mission was October 1 with the Amazonas 2 and COMSATBw-1 satellites. The THOR 6 is a 3,050 kg satellite fitted with 36 Ku band transponders for direct-to-home television services from Telenor Satellite Broadcasting to Central and Eastern Europe as well providing additional capacity in the Nordic region. The NSS-12 spacecraft was produced by Space Systems/Loral and weighs 5,620 kg. It carries 40 C-band and 48 Ku-band transponders. This satellite will also provide direct-to-home television services from SES WORLD SKIES. The audience is in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Australia. |
Posted in European Space Agency, Rocket, Satellites, Space, Technology | Tagged: Ariane 5, Arianespace, ESA, European Space Agency | Leave a Comment »
Posted by drdave on October 28, 2009
Following yesterday’s scrub, Ares 1-X survived the overnight thunderstorm and is scheduled for launch this morning. And we are watching on NASA – TV. Currently, they are reviewing systems within Ares I-X to verify there has been no damage. The nearest lightening strike was 700 feet (200 meters) away. The countdown is sitting at T minus 4:00 minutes, and launch is tentatively scheduled for around 9:00 AM EDT.
The resumption of the count is expected in about 25 minutes.
Ares I-X. Second Attempt. Early Morning Credit: NASA TV. |
Second Attempt. Hold for Rocket Check. Credit: NASA TV. |
Currently waiting for completion of the systems checks on Ares I-X and the weather. The main weather problem is “triboelectrification”, which is fully explained in this review of yesterday’s launch attempt. Briefly:
According to the 45th Weather Squadron of the Air Force – the Squadron responsible for monitoring all launch weather rules – Triboelectrification is defined as: “triboelectric charging observed to put aircraft and space vehicles into corona when they fly through clouds containing ice or precipitation in either phase.
“The corona generates radio signals known as P-static (Precipitation static). P-static can degrade the signal to noise ratio of critical communications to the vehicle, especially including the range destruct command link.
The new launch time is 11:00 AM EDT. Weather is expected to have an 80% chance to be acceptable at that time (8:00 AM Phoenix time).
Pad 39B. Credit: NASA TV. |
Aerial View of Ares I-X. Credit: NASA TV. |
If today’s launch is scrubbed, the next window is late December or early 2010.
With 20 minutes to go until 11:00 AM EDT, the launch director has polled all systems and all systems are ready for launch. Everything is ok except the weather for triboelectrification.
At 11:03, weather is no go and the estimate is for 20 to 25 minutes from now. And now, they plan to pick up the clock at 11:16 AM and launch at 11:20 AM.
At 11:20, we have a ten minute window. Launch Director looking to resume the count at 11:27 EDT.
The count has resumed with launch expected at 11:30 AM.
Launch success.
Ascent. Credit: NASA TV. |
Posted in NASA, Rocket, Space Exploration | Tagged: Ares I-X, Launch | Leave a Comment »
Posted by drdave on October 27, 2009
Ares 1-X is scheduled for launch this morning, and we are watching on NASA – TV. Currently, they are trying to remove the cover on the instrument probe on the top of the rocket. Delay until it comes loose.
The cord has finally separated. Ares 1-X is due for 9:44 AM EDT, assuming the weather holds. At 10 minutes before launch, the area is clear for launch.
Ares 1-X on Launch Pad. Credit: NASA TV. |
Removing the Probe Cover. Credit: NASA TV. |
And now it is delayed by a ship in the area. The Air Force Range Safety team is having the ship turn around, and will clear the range soon.
Now we have a discussion of the weather window closing and they are trying to make up for the delay. Now poling launch team. Everyone is Go and they are getting a new launch time. Which is now 13:49 GMT (9:49 EDT).
T-4 minutes and counting. We got down to T-2:39 and they are resetting the clock due to launch weather officer stating weather would be no-go at T-0.
T Minus 2:39. Credit: NASA TV. |
Hold. Waiting for Weather. Credit: NASA TV. |
T-0 is now scheduled for 10:54 AM EDT. Ares 1-X has been safed, and the count has been recycled to T-4 minutes and holding.
Hold for Weather. Credit: NASA TV. |
Pad Winds – Holding at T minus 4 Minutes. Credit: NASA TV. |
At 10:24 EDT we have about 30 minutes left in the hold. The latest problem is the wind speed at the pad is now above the 20 knot limit, which makes the launch “red”.
Currently at 10:36 EDT, the rocket is green, conditions are red and they expect to pick up the count in 15 minutes. Conditions are not looking promising. Kathy Winters, weather, states the open band expected 10:54 AM is narrowing. Other than weather, everything is currently green.
The Launch Director has announced 11:04 AM EDT as the new launch time.
Quote from Nasa:
The range is not available after noon today due to reasons such as airspace and warning areas, planes operating on flight plans, and other issues. Today’s launch window ends at noon.
The count is now scheduled to resume at T-4 minutes at 11:15 EDT with launch at 11:19 AM. There is a 25 minute weather window. After that, the weather will degrade.
The launch has now been moved up 5 minutes to 11:14 AM EDT. And then pushed back to 11:19 due to weather.
Weather reports green on all constraints with 2 minutes to resumption of the count.
Pad winds at 21 kts, and the launch gets bumped “a bit”. The Launch Director notes that if they miss the current resumption they will likely hang it up for the day.
The launch is scrubbed.
Posted in NASA, Rocket, Space | Tagged: Ares 1-X, Constellation Program, Launch | 1 Comment »
