Much has been made of the support Norman Augustine's committee has given to commercial spaceflight but what hasn't been talked about is the mystery booster
In the full Review of US human spaceflight plans report it separates the booster from the capsule for the commercial crew competiton it is proposing and refers to a high reliability booster with a track record that NASA would provide but oddly it is not named. On page 70 the report says
In addition, the Committee believes that if a commercial crew program is pursued, NASA should make available to bidders a suitable version of an existing booster with a demonstrated track record of successful flight, adding to the program cost.
Some might have assumed that this was an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, either United Launch Alliance's Atlas V or its Delta IV but if so why not just say so?
According to the report it will have a track record which suggests that it should be flying already, so why not name it?
Could it then be the Delta II, a rocket that we always hear is about to have its last launch? But that only has a measly 5,430kg to low Earth orbit capability so its unlikely to be it, not based on that payload capacity data anyway it doesn't look quite enough. Not if you want a six crew International Space Station emergency return capable vehicle. It's a shame because the Delta has, according to this document, a very good reliability
So why not those EELVs?
The EELVs have their fair share of challenges, from the revelation that the Atlas V was apparently deemed unsafe by the Orbital Space Plane programme and its Russian engine situation, to the Delta IV needing a new upper stage and a new launch pad - the latter being mentioned by United Launch Alliance CEO Michael Gass at the 17 June Augustine hearing
Could it be a foreign launcher? NASA administrator Charles Bolden told this journalist at the 60th International Astronautical Congress in Korea in October that it would be up to US president Barack Obama to decide to what degree international partners were "on the critical path" for crew transport. Could a Samara Space Center Soyuz-FG launch a "commercial" capsule from French Guiana? Alas that six crew capability necessary capsule won't like that, assuming that is actually needed
So what could this mystery booster be? Could it be the Ares I? Probably not if you want a 2016 first launch that fits within the Obama 2010 NASA budget request
Could it be a booster of the future? When the report says track record it doesn't say a record yet to be substantiated but it does'nt not say that either
Could there be a booster that would have flown dozens of times by 2016? Yes, its Space Exploration Technologies' Falcon 9 and it has a 10,450kg to LEO (28.5 degree inclination) capability - SpaceX says that would only be slightly lower for the ISS' 52 degrees orbital inclination location. And then there is the heavy version with its three liquid cores and its 26,000kg to LEO potential
But why not Orbital Sciences' Taurus II I hear you ask? Because this blog post is going to assume that the Space News article not naming it as a company selected for NASA's Commercial Crew Development activity is correct - so no crew transport for Orbital
Hyperbola has even heard gossip that the Augustine committee had Falcon 9 in mind. Certainly SpaceX can jump for joy if true because the committee's report goes on to say on page 70
As will be discussed in Section 5.4.2., the Committee reviewed convincing evidence
of the value of independent oversight in the mission assurance of launchers, and would envision a strong NASA oversight role in assuring commercial vehicle safety. The challenge of developing a safe and reliable commercial capability for crew transport will require devoting government funds to "buy down" a significant amount of the existing uncertainty. Whatever the particulars of this risk removal process, it will take an appreciable period of time and require the application of thorough, independent mission-assurance practices. A critical aspect of this exercise will be confirming the root cause and adequacy of correction of any failures or anomalies encountered in the development test program. [emphasis added]
The report then goes on to say, again on page 70, that
NASA should make available...a suitable version of an existing booster...adding to the program cost. The best preliminary estimate of the Committee was about a $3 billion program for the fraction of the design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT&E) effort that would be borne by NASA. After multiplying by the historical growth factors and
other multipliers associated with 65 percent confidence estimating (as will be discussed in Section 6.3), the cost carried in the Committee's final estimate of the cost of the program to NASA is about $5 billion.[emphasis added]
This suggests that NASA's costs for crew transport will almost entirely be taken up with the booster suggesting the commercial partner will have to find all the funds for the capsule or at least NASA's share of that spend will be very limited. But if you're making the booster your laughing all the way to the bank it would seem - are we still sure Ares I won't get selected?
But it gets worse. On page 71 the report says
It was estimated by the Committee that under the "less constrained budget" to be discussed in Chapter 6, the commercial crew launch service could be in place by 2016. Estimates from providers ranged from three years to five years from the present. Assuming a year for program re-alignment, this would produce a start in early FY 2011. Using the upper end of the estimated range, a capability in 2016 could be estimated with reasonable confidence.[emphasis added]
The less constrained budget adds $3 billion over the next four fiscal years. What is the likelihood of that happening?
The situation that exists is that the Augustine committee sees a commercial option operating by 2016 only if there is extra NASA cash. Neither does it envisage a truly commercial procurement process, NASA is now on the critical path with the booster. And not just for mission assurance that is clear. Now the booster is independent of much of the commercial partners whose sole aim is to produce an American Soyuz with a minimum of three seats and a maximum of six, one would imagine
The question that remains with Hyperbola is, is that booster Ares I or Falcon 9 because that choice is all important
on December 8, 2009 7:33 AM | Reply
.
I've already said that the Augustine Commission report adds LOTS of confusion and complications with give just ONE clear solution!
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/056hsfreport.html
the consequence of these "advices" is that, those who must (soon) decide about the US human spaceflight future, will take LOTS of WRONG choices!
the ONLY clear thing, today, is that NASA can't rely on the Ares-1 because the 1-X test has been very WEAK and the ($35 billion R&D costs) new rocket is DEAD before born:
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/058ares1dead.html
insist on this way is like try to revive a CADAVER
.
on December 8, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply
"...the Atlas V was apparently deemed unsafe by the Orbital Space Plane programme..."
Not really...The OSP program (read JSC and MSFC) had issues with flying on EELVs because of politics and rice bowl struggles. It had nothing to do with engineering. The supposed EELV engineering issues were the vehicle (no pun intended) by which the political goals of JSC and MSFC were pushed. Those two centers simply could not stand the thought of the commercial sector flying USG astronauts on vehicles "not invented here".
Those in the USG that know the Atlas V best (NASA LSP) know the vehicle is a good candidate for being human rated (whatever that means). Now if you could only get them to talk...
on December 8, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply
Since we are speculating Rob-
Page 69 of the report says
"While launch of the Orion on the Delta IV HLV was found
to be technically feasible, it requires some modification
of the current launcher, and was comparable in cost and
schedule to simply continuing with the development of
the Ares I. When the Committee factored in the carrying
cost of the NASA infrastructure that would be maintained
if any NASA-heritage heavy launcher would eventually
be developed (Ares V in any variant or a more directly
Shuttle-derived heavy launcher), any cost savings that
might have occurred due to using an EELV to launch the
Orion were lost. Using the EELV for launch of Orion
would only make sense if it were coupled with the de-
velopment of an EELV-heritage super-heavy vehicle for
cargo launch. Except in this case, this analysis closed out
the second option."
The report explicitly leaves the door open for another option entirely.
from page 68
"The Atlas Phase 2 is a proposed follow-on of the EELV program, with larger, five-meter diameter, stages, manufactured using the existing five-meter production facilities that currently produce the Delta IV core stages."
Clearly the solution for access to LEO is closely coupled to the Heavy Lift question.
Unfortunately the problem space extends beyond the weighing of technical factors such as technology,schedule and cost into the political arenas of procurement, pork barrels and institutional infighting and political will.
The "EELV Heritage Super-Heavy" could clearly be sold as an evolved version of the existing EELV launchers and the report clearly accepts that it would qualify as an accepteable solution.
"Using a “super-heavy” variant that would have a core and two boosters of the same basic design, and when used in conjunction with an upgraded common hydrogen/oxygen upper stage, it is likely to have a maximum payload to low-Earth orbit in the range of 75 mt. This exceeds the nominal minimum for a heavy lifter useful for exploration as defined above. A representative of this category of launchers is the Atlas 5 Phase 2 Heavy."
All liquid heavy lift using existing infrastructure that does away with the heavy, expensive solids and does not require extensive crawler/crawlerway upgrades?
Safe, simple, soon?
The real question may just be -
How radical will Obama be prepared to be?
on December 8, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply
Why not an Atlas V 402, like what Jeff Greason suggested DURING one of the Augustine meetings? You don't have to worry about solid strap ons then
on December 8, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply
Lets assume for the moment that the first flight of Falcon 9 is successful and the second and ....
It would take many launches for me or anyone in their right mind to imagine that it is safe for US astronauts.
Even if it passes this test then we are faced with ..it is too small. The proposed resolution is three cores. That makes 27 engines which need to function perfectly time after time.
No way.
Neither NASA, the Air Force nor a company with the Falcon 1 track record behind it, should be so arrogant as to imagine that this is risk-free.
In my opinion only the Atlas V-base and maybe the Taurus II-base (after it proves itself and if they can guarantee N-33 engine supply) could meet the need.
on December 9, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply
post edit: ...WITHOUT give just ONE clear...
on December 9, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply
Gabe Kampis, your opinion is just imagination. Not science, engineering, or fact.
on December 9, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply
DUDE!!! WHAT'S NOT TO UNDERSTAND? IT'S AN EELV!
Hyperbola just can't stand the fact that Atlas V or Delta IV will be used for Commercial Crew.
You might not want to listen when NASA announces the winners of the Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program on Friday. Might be more than you can handle. Better stock up on your medication.
on December 11, 2009 4:03 AM | Reply
Gave - the falcon 9 that will launch dragon is single-core and has 9 first stage engiens, delivering about 10 tons to LEO. It doesn't take 25 to put 6 people in orbit.
on December 14, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply
I think the prominance of the Ares V Lite in discussions about heavy lift undermine this otherwise good argument. I would point out that "a larger, five-meter diameter, stages, manufactured using the existing five-meter production facilities that currently produce the Delta IV core stages," is an entirely new booster. An argument that can be made for Ares V Lite is that substantial work has already been done on the SRBs and the upper stage J2-X engine, thanks to Ares I. If I remember correctly during the human spaceflight safety hearing the other week Joe Fragola said that earlier NASA studies had found a single liquid core stage more safe than the use of triple cores. Really it seems the safest option is a very powerful single stage that could loft an Orion or similar capsule into a suborbital trajectory that then uses its service module to reach orbit and that does not exist today.
on December 15, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply
re: "I think the prominance of the Ares V Lite in discussions about heavy lift undermine this otherwise good argument."
Unfortunately I have the feeling that you are right.
The determined front loading of spending on SRBs in the project 'plan' to date, is probably the single most blatant signal that MSFC / Kennedy Space Centre are determined to stick to 'business a usual' and attempt to justify it with the sunk cost fallacy that Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift is better/cheaper and if we are doing SDHL then Ares1 is the best option.
As for the hearings: The fact is that a single cored 5m Atlas Phase 2 is more than capable of lofting even the overly large Orion payload as it exists now, even before the removal of the exessive weight of the enormous escape system that had to be designed in- in a (failed) attempt to mitigate the increased demands of being launched on an SRB.
It appears we will have a political fight on our hands in the year to come.
I hope that a cost effective way of improving capabilities and allowing groundbreaking new missions can be found.
Unfortunately this is NASA and American politics so, based on 40 years of evidence, I hold little hope that 'business as usual' can be overturned for 'Do the best that we can do'.
p.s. On an entirely different note.
How about holding a poll of readers / commenters something along the lines of
'Ban the idiotic, uninformed rantings of gaetano marano and ghostNASA.com from this otherwise informative and enlightening blog?'
1) yes
2) I dont believe in censorship-but everything I have ever read of his has been a waste of my time - so yes.
3) You have to ask?
;-)