Speaking to NASA Space Shuttle programme office manager and shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle proponent John Shannon today he expressed views on the outcome of the Norman Augustine led review that could cheer some but perhaps concern a lot more
"There is not enough time to do this super detailed review and I really don't expect them to come out and say you should build this rocket. What I suspect is that they will have a 'NASA should go look or consider at these options with this architecture for this budget number' and we'll go work that with Congress and White House and whatever budget numbers we get will define a lot of what happens next," Shannon told Hyperbola, the implications of which are that NASA will continue working on Ares for some time to come just as it is already while the Review of US human spaceflight plans is ongoing
More uncertainty extending into 2010 would surely be the worst outcome? More delay and more studies would simply make the situation worse for the likes of Kennedy Space Center and the wider industry if, as Shuttle retires, there is doubt about the new vehicles and all current work was abandoned - love or loathe Ares I its keeping capability and jobs alive come 2011
A post-Augustine technical investigation could, paradoxically, ensure Ares I wins by default because by the time any such study concluded the maturity of the crew launch vehicle design and propinquity of the 2015 target date could close the book on other proposals
Shannon gave a presentation on the Shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle on 17 June at the first public meeting of the Review of US human spaceflight plans committee in Washington DC
"There is not enough time to do this super detailed review and I really don't expect them to come out and say you should build this rocket. What I suspect is that they will have a 'NASA should go look or consider at these options with this architecture for this budget number' and we'll go work that with Congress and White House and whatever budget numbers we get will define a lot of what happens next," Shannon told Hyperbola, the implications of which are that NASA will continue working on Ares for some time to come just as it is already while the Review of US human spaceflight plans is ongoing
More uncertainty extending into 2010 would surely be the worst outcome? More delay and more studies would simply make the situation worse for the likes of Kennedy Space Center and the wider industry if, as Shuttle retires, there is doubt about the new vehicles and all current work was abandoned - love or loathe Ares I its keeping capability and jobs alive come 2011
A post-Augustine technical investigation could, paradoxically, ensure Ares I wins by default because by the time any such study concluded the maturity of the crew launch vehicle design and propinquity of the 2015 target date could close the book on other proposals
Shannon gave a presentation on the Shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle on 17 June at the first public meeting of the Review of US human spaceflight plans committee in Washington DC
on June 24, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply
"Ares I is not dead"
after all, USA is the country of E.R. :)
.
on June 25, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply
I've reviewed all 4 proposals for VSE Transportation systems and it's clear that ULA's is in the preliminary stage - particularly for the ARES 5 role.
SPACE X is operating as a back-up and clearly aims to corner the ISS mission "market" for their Dragon/Falcon 9 concept at the least and maybe grabbing the ARES 1 role as well. But if ISS de-orbits in 2016 what is the point of custom designing launchers and spacecraft to service'supply it with only a year's window for U.S flights-assuming slipping schedules firm up.
DIRECT seems to be playing with numbers and options to such an extent that demarcations between their booster designs narrow sharply, and obviously constitute a response to the charge their original Jupiter 232 configuration was inadequate. But they are erring towards exiting engine hardware to be followed later with upgrades such as the 5.5 segment SRB, J-2x and clustered PWR LR-10/60 liquid engines for different upper stages dependent on mission profile. They also are thinking ahead to Mars missions with their new Jupiter 130 & 24X designs. The best nd most comprehensive presentation IMO.
The Shuttle-C/HLV concept is intriguingin that it simply retains the ET unmodified with 4-segement SRB's; transfers the 3#SSME to the rear of a payload pod - mounted in the original shuttle location using current joints etc - that can accommodate both LEO and Interplanetary upper stage payloads. The Shuttle was a 100mT vehicle, so allowing for payload fairing/pod mass - say 10% - two HLV launches could get Constellation to the moon; there a LOR will enable a 90MT Apollo-type lunar mission to be duplicated.
I really think tha DIRECT people have put the wind up NASA - the initiator, Ross Tierney is from Blighty by the way! Anyone noted how NASA's Astronaut Corps is chock full of Britons?! EXCELLENT!
The HLV is a clear(unstated/denied of course!) indicator that ARES 1 & 5 have reached the end of the road and I'm sure a failed ARES 1-X launch will tip the balance. A pity they couldn't have come with Shuttle-C/HLV to begin with; especially now PAD 39B has been hacked about with to the detriment for dual launches of similar vehicles. Not to mention the amount of money they've already wasted.
on June 25, 2009 3:59 AM | Reply
Unless the nay sayers can come up with a word like propinquity, they should get thrown out.
on June 25, 2009 5:28 AM | Reply
.
just posted my suggestion #4 for the Human Space Flight Plans Committee and NASA: "put the spacecrafts and spaceflights safety as FIRST concern" http://ow.ly/f3vQ
.
on June 25, 2009 8:29 AM | Reply
Good word propinquity.
on June 25, 2009 8:45 AM | Reply
My spaceflight analysis for the 7 July issue of Flight International magazine, which could be on the flightglobal.com on Monday 29 June, will all be about the Shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle. IMHO the problem with DIRECT is that if you go back to 2005 and look at what that rocket would require in terms of money it would have busted the budget in the early years (looking at the funding range from 2005 to 2015) while Ares I, originally, used existing hardware for its first stage and a more 'doable' upper stage. The reason why Ares V has always been pushed out well into the next decade is because Shuttle and potentially ISS directed funds would have been freed up by then for use fpr that rocket, assuming Congress didn't just take that money for their own earmarks. I'll blog about this further at a future date, the NASA funding situation and rocket development, not Congressional earmarks.
on June 25, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply
I assume you mean the tv programme and not Elizabeth Rex, our Queen, Her Majesty Elizabeth II ;-)
on June 26, 2009 6:59 AM | Reply
Well Rob, you are right in the sense that not making a decision is itself a decision which could allow Ares I to win by default.
However the crazy price escalation of Ares I would proclude any project beyond, dooming the Ares V and Altair. And even if no decision is made through the year 2010 (which I think is unconscionable), Falcon 9 and the Dragon capsule should have actually flown to the space station by then.
If Congress is faced with the situation of a money pit like Ares I/Orion plus real flight hardware actually in hand like Dragon, I could see Congress killing both Ares I and the outsized Orion CEV.
In my opinion a more promising outcome is that a near term selection IS made instead, which cancels Ares I and Ares V and favors a Delta IV crew launch vehicle and a side mount type shuttle derived cargo launch vehicle (for which I have created the acronym "NTSC", standing for "Not The Shuttle C"). This would be an affordable and available combination from which to craft a revised lunar exploration architecture.
Such an revised architecture might use 1 + 1/2 + 1/2 launch and ISS + EML-1 rendezvous; instead of 1 + 1/2 launch and EOR + LOR of the Ares rockets. In other words the revision would send the Orion to rendezvous at the Space Station with a small Earth Departure Stage, utilizing one Delta IV heavy to launch Orion and one Delta IV heavy to launch the small Earth Departure Stage. After mating the small Earth Departure State would propel the Orion to the Earth-Moon-Lagrange point number one. At EML-1 the Orion would rendezvous with a pre-positioned Altair lunar lander.
One launch of the NTSC heavy-lift cargo rocket would place the Altair lunar lander with a large Earth Departure Stage into low Earth orbit. The large Earth Departure Stage then propelling the Altair to EML-1.
on June 26, 2009 7:29 AM | Reply
I think NASA said they picked Ares I because of the safety factor, not just cost..
RE: ares 1 dead or not. You need to look at the big picture. The reason the Augustine Commission exists, and the reason it has such a significant mandate in such a short period of time, is because Lori Garver told Obama's people that there was a way to cut fat at NASA and still get a (the) job done. Obama's people want results fast, thus the short committee time. The whole thing is basically a test to prove the hypothesis that Constellation is broken. Once they have the evidence they need, they'll cut the fat and choose a new direction. Hopefully they choose a good one (commercialization of space launching, processing of space resources, and advanced technology R&D).
All happening around the same time: The news from LCROSS about resources on the moon, the new NASA direction from Augustine, the new president who people compare to JFK, and the confirmation of the new NASA administration picked by him. A fat lazy debtful country losing jobs and talent left and right. I wonder what will happen next.
on June 26, 2009 8:59 AM | Reply
Interesting in sight into what Lori Garver has allegedly said. Haven't heard that anywhere else. Cut fat? If they have to make a decision quickly its because they are retiring Shuttle next year. I can't agree with the rest iof your analysis.
on June 26, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply
The problem is, budget wise, NASA can only develop one launch vehicle at a time.
on June 26, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply
Ross Tierney of the Direct 3 Launch Team recently reported that the Augustine Committee contacted the Direct Launcher Team in order to request additional information from them. This request occurred after Direct's June 17,2009 presentation to the Committee. It sounds like the Augustine Committee is interested in the Direct Launcher!! http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17295.1605
on June 26, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply
Continuing Ares-I does absolutely nothing for anybody at KSC because they are all OPERATIONS personnel. They need a flying vehicle to work with, not one that's under development. They will ALL be out of a job by the spring of 2011 - period. All Ares-I work is engineering and development, that takes place at MSFC and JSC. And as for the 2015 date, that is NASA's wishful thinking. Some time ago, before the myriad of technical problems began to really make life miserable for the Ares-I designers, the 2015 date was listed at 65% confidence. That means that way back when, NASA only assigned a 65% probability that Ares-I would fly by 2015. Since that time, it has been one very bad development after another as well as the Constellatiuon budget being cut. Today there is almost zero percent (0%) confidence in the 2015 date, but NASA PAO has not seen fit to publish that. The generally accepted new date is September 2017, and once again at 65% confidence. That's a 35% probability that Ares-I will not even fly by the fall of 2017. That is very bad, very bad indeed. By the time it flies, the Florida Space Coast and all the sourounding area will be an economic dead zone. Don't believe me? Read a little history of what it was like after Apollo/Saturn shut down. It was VERY bad, and THIS gap is projected to be twice as long as that one was.
on June 26, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply
All of the competing proposals are providing more data. Speaking to John Shannon about Shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle he talked about DIRECT briefly and said that he had spoken to Ross Tierney and that while Jupiter was a "viable rocket" it just cost too much money. Shannon thinks DIRECT has underestimated the costs. But then who doesn't?
on June 26, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply
I didn't say they were KSC jobs they were keeping alive. I sympathise with the situation, which is why I was blogging for some time about why Shuttle would have to be extended by the Obama administration just to get the Florida economy through the worst of the recession and the state did not all vote Republican in 2012. I have been amazed at the way the whole Shuttle retirement has been allowed to slide by this administration. I hadn't heard the 2017 date. Could all be academic come October.
on June 26, 2009 11:17 PM | Reply
.
just posted my suggestion #5 for the Human Space Flight Plans Committee and NASA:
"don't throw away the Shuttles' technology and know-how"
http://ow.ly/f3vQ
.
on June 27, 2009 3:46 AM | Reply
---
just posted my suggestion #6 for the Human Space Flight Plans Committee and NASA: "don't dismantle or modify or upgrade the Shuttle's launch pads" http://ow.ly/f3vQ
---
on June 27, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply
I think the "Shuttle slide" question is symptomatic of Obama's attitude towards Space endeavours. I consider he is looking for an excuse to ditch manned space flight and limit NASA's budget to the unmanned portion. That's the best part of $12B saved annually. As for the employment question, he's DONE little to prevent the slide in any sphere; merely "talked the walk" as a current fave cliche puts it. Consider: the more beholden to Big-G the general populous are financially, the more control one has on their lives without actually invoking overtly fascist methods: the essence of Socialism. Its going to have to get worse before any improvement is in order.
But, the complete loss of the manned spaceflight boondoggle will be as bad for L-M, N-G, ATK et al as the recent meltdown has been for GM & Co. Thus I think Augustine will recommend the potentially cheapest solution. From what I've gleaned thus far "NTSC" fit's the bill and has the potential to reduce the "gap". Still, anything's GOT to be better than ARES 1!
on June 28, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply
IMHO, the side mounted shuttle-derived concept, which John Shannon presented (but I think did not formally endorse), is the best all-around option. It would practically guarantee a smooth, timely transition to a new manned vehicle, and allow evolution to the in-line shuttle-derived if that proves more wothy; it would also be an affordable interim to any other manned launcher, like Atlas V or Space X Falcon.
Therefore, best option at this time.
on August 5, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply
Cutting the fat at NASA will only be possible with a major shift in culture, not a change in architecture.