credit NASA / caption: Orbiter Atlantis and its SSMEs. Click on the image to see a larger version
NASA has told Hyperbola, "Some individuals at NASA believe that a limited number of established or start-up commercial space transportation organizations may express interest [in Space Shuttle Main Engines] once it is clear that the space shuttle's last mission really will occur on a certain near-term date, and that the remaining engines are still in "fly-able" condition."
I had asked about the disposal of the SSMEs because the agency's orbiter placement Request For Information states that "NASA plans to initially retain flight-worthy SSMEs for technical mitigation and potential programmatic reuse."
Programmatic reuse? NASA's definition of "technical mitigation and potential programmatic reuse" is:
1. Use by NASA and DOD government research and development laboratories (i.e., MSFC, SSC) for engineering development, advanced technology development, maintenance procedures improvement development, and training.
2. Potential flight use in civil or national security expendable launch vehicles after the completion of the Space Shuttle Program.
3. Potential flight use in U.S. Commercial expendable launch vehicles after the completion of the Space Shuttle Program
NASASpaceflight.com has since run a story saying that the Ares project office is still considering SSMEs for the Ares V cargo launch vehicle. In response to my question about Ares interest in SSMEs NASA's space operations transition manager Joel Kearns said:
"I am not aware of any Ares V Project Office request for SSMEs. However, since it is known that (a) the Space Shuttle Program will keep all the assembled flight SSMEs in SSP inventory until and least the last space shuttle mission and (b) the Orbiter/RFI informs both NASA and the public that the assembled flight SSMEs are not to be advertised for disposition at this time, that means that Ares V Project knows there is no 2009 date by which they need to inform us if they do have an interest."
The more conspiratorial amongst you might say, ah, so the Ares project office know they have lots of time before they need to ask!
Personally I am doubtful about SSME adaption to an expendable version even if NASASpaceflight.com is reporting higher than expected costs regarding Ares V core stage propulsion RS-68B development; because it will have to run twice as long as the RS-68 does for the United Launch Alliance (ULA)/Boeing Delta IV
I should add that NASA has also told me that "No one to date has expressed interest in the SSMEs." But because of this apparent belief by some at NASA that start up or established commercial operators might be interested I contacted Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and ULA
SpaceX's PR guy said "To my knowledge, we have not had any discussions about SSMEs." To his knowledge, what about the Falcon 9 programme manager? Again, I would advise restraint in the conspiratorial department
I didn't contact Orbital Sciences about its Taurus II launcher's first-stage that will use two Aerojet AJ26-62*, Aerojet's version of the NK-33/43 engines, as my colleague John Croft was trying to contact them at the time about ISS commercial resupply services and they didn't respond
While ULA has been silent so far. Doesn't mean anything though. I'm still waiting on ULA for a bunch of orbital propellant depot stuff (yes that thorny issue - calm down Mr Goff!)
*This is what Orbital states in its Taurus II fact sheet, AJ26-62, but the Aerojet website only refers to AJ26-58/59/61, no -62!
on January 21, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply
.
the most important question to ask is: "how many SSMEs the have now and how many of them they'll expect to have after the Shuttle retirement?"
well, the last three Shuttles have 9 engines in total, also, I've read they alrady have 6 spare engines in their warehouses, while, the last P&WR contract last year was of about $900M of value, that, at a $60M price per SSME, should mean 15 futher engines
the grand total seems be "30" but I suppose they've already used some of them to replace old/defective SSMEs
so, how many SSMEs the have?
.
on January 21, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply
NASA's stringing you up for an early April Fool's joke, sir:
SSMEs are a gorgeous museum piece. Unless Mr. Musk develops a BFE to follow-on the Merlins, then you can't beat an RS-68 for cost.
But while we're in this RP1-induced fantasy, ponder Rutan and P&W putting an aerospike in an SS2 follow-on. Whoa, man...
on January 21, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply
Why would SpaceX want SSME for Falcon 9? It's a completely RP-1 vehicle and SpaceX have no experience with LH2. Same goes for OSC.
For a booster first stage (since that's the only place a SSME can be used, it can't be air-started), you can't beat RP-1 at ease of operation and cost. See how much an Atlas V costs compared to a Delta IV and compare their tankage.
on January 21, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply
That is true in but in journalism you never assume that what you think you know, such as your implied assumption that neither OSC or SpaceX are interested in LH2 systems, is true. So I just thought, who are the possible candidates? And emailed them.
on January 21, 2009 11:53 PM | Reply
Maybe the next $800 billion economic plan has a slot for SSME buyers. They cost less & are a less risky investment than a lot of the mortgages being funded by the plan.
on January 30, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply
The SSME already is high enough performance for a small SSTO RLV such as the SASSTO.
A single SSME could easily power a vehicle like the SASSTO and lift delta II class payloads.
As for spacex being interested it's much to large for use in an upper stage for F9 spacex would have more interest in the RL-60.
OSC would like a better upper stage for Taurus II but again the SSME is total over kill.
Boeing might be interested in the SSME in evolving the Delta IV into a semi RLV like their original NLS concept.
on February 2, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply
Interesting idea. I think its more likely the USAF will want to use SSME. I know they have had spaceplane studies on going. They were doing low speed approach wind tunnel work. They were happy to talk about it at one time and then went silent. As I've said elsewhere spaceplanes need to start off as small unmanned reusable upper stage vehicles and once all the thermal control, GNC etc is proved out and better, lighter, tougher composites are available the tech can be combined with the systems needed for horizontal launch. Despite spaceplane concepts being around for decades too many people just don't realise that we (bywhich I mean humanity) simply do not have the tech, even today, to achieve that. Sorry Aurora conspiracy theorists.
on December 4, 2009 6:53 AM | Reply
Hi Rob .... i don't know much about the space shutters ... after reading your blog i got an idea what it is . and it is an interesting idea... keep posting such an interesting articles.