credit: NASA / caption: NASA's proposed Ares V cargo launch vehicle mode in a windtunnel
A heavy lift rocket is needed to sustain the International Space Station (ISS) because when Shuttle retires key parts of the station are too large for any of the existing rockets available or those planned
In an exclusive interview Boeing vice president and ISS programme manager Joy Bryant stressed the need for a heavy lift capability and downmass - to bring back experiments - to ensure the station is full realised as a laboratory
Boeing has been NASA's prime contractor for the US segment of the ISS since 1993. On 5 March this year the company officially "delivered" the outpost to NASA but Boeing will continue to service the station on a "sustaining" contract. In Bryant's view to sustain the ISS a heavy lift launcher is needed
Bryant sees problems with that based on past ISS operations experience. Of the four CMGs one has entirely failed and the other three have shown anomalous behaviour since. Maintenance work on those remaining CMGs has not been without its issues including problems introducing torque into the mechanism
Essentially the problem is the ORUs were designed to be replaced, not patched up and without Shuttle Boeing says redesigning such major ISS sub-systems is going to be a difficult and expensive path. Bryant's solution? As soon as possible build the heavy lift vehicle NASA says its going to need for exploration anyway
However under president Barack Obama's plans for the agency even a decision for heavy lift is being left to 2015 and the next five years will only focus on propulsion research. The next US presidential election is in 2012
on April 14, 2010 6:04 PM | Reply
This is somewhat misleading. There are other approaches that could be developed for a fraction of the cost of an HLV which could provide at least up-mass as large (both mass and volume-wise) as the Shuttle. What is there that could be launched on Shuttle, but couldn't be flown on say using a proposed "Payload Bay Fairing" like ULA suggested?
http://selenianboondocks.com/2008/11/interesting-paper-on-shuttle-alternatives/
~Jon
on April 14, 2010 9:33 PM | Reply
In the article it said "...the ISS has faced a problem of having components, notably its Control Movement Gyroscopes, that are too large for any launcher other than NASA's orbiters."
I think they need to explain this more. For LEO delivery capacity here is the Shuttle compared to three other heavy lifters:
Shuttle - 25,060 kg, and 4.6 by 18 m volume
Delta IV Heavy - 23,040 kg, and 5 m fairing (usable width no stated)
Atlas V Heavy - 25,000 kg, and 5.4 m fairing (4.57 meters usable)
Falcon 9 Heavy - 32,000 kg, and 5 m fairing (4.6 by 6.6+ m volume)
The NASA link given for the CMG's says that they weigh 600 lbs, so it's not the CMG's themselves that are the issue. Is this FUD, or is there something HUGE that hasn't been explained?
on April 14, 2010 9:46 PM | Reply
Yeah, this is kind of an absurdity unless your paycheck is coming from Boeing PR, I guess. Besides the ULA option which just needs a new payload fairing, I think the ISS partners can find some way to get a 600 lb. gyroscope into orbit, between Astrium's Ariane 5 and Russia's Soyuz which will soon have a new launch site operational in Kourou.
on April 14, 2010 11:36 PM | Reply
Dump the ISS white elephant use HLV to BIG Biggelow stations instead.
on April 15, 2010 6:48 PM | Reply
ESA ATV payload 7,667 kg (16,900 lb) diameter 4.5m
JAXA H-2 payload 6 tons (~13,000 lb) diameter 4.4m
Roscosmos Progress payload 2,350 kg (5,200 lb) diameter 2.72m
SpaceX Dragon payload 2,500 kg (5,500 lb) diameter 3.6m
And then there's Roscosmos' Parom which may be able to ferry up to 30 ton/ 60,000 lb cargos launched by Angara.
So I can't see any reason to give away more funding to a company apparently disconnected with reality or that has problems counting.
on April 22, 2010 8:13 AM | Reply
A rocket in search of a payload, since there is no LEO/BEO project extent that justifies heavy lift. On the other hand. No HLV now means a VERY EXPENSIVE - mostly new - item down the road.
We have the "seed" hardware in the SSME, the ET, the four and/or (dependent upon production-line state) five Segment SRB providing a 100T capability within a couple of years if NASA management gets on the stick.
If we must do research then figure out how to air-start the SSME - resurrect STME perhaps?
What can we do with it? Loft a Space launch base with refuelling and servicing bays - in a 28'5deg orbit - using Bigelow's inflatables for accommodation modules.
Set things up so we can head out in BEO missions with 95% of the Gravity Well penalty eliminated. With a HLV, substantially sized upper stages and fuel tanks for the depot can be lofted relatively cheaply.
But forget ISS and more grasping at straws. I suspect Boeing is realising that they and the other established space companies are being ditched in favour of SpaceX and possibly OSC;if they can stave off the Musk treatment meted out to Kistler...