Recently in Apollo Category

Internet billionaire and space aficionado, Jeff Bezos, who plans to run a space transportation operation via his Blue Origin outfit, has just been congratulated by NASA's Administrator Maj.Gen Charles Bolden for a more historical endeavour.   Specifically, Bezos and his team of salvagers have managed to bring two Saturn V F-1 first stage rocket engines that were launched on a mission in the NASA Apollo programme.  The engines, rated at 1.5 million lb thrust, were broght to the surface.  

The full story is here: http://www.bezosexpeditions.com/updates.html

While the late first man on the Moon, Neil Armstrong would probably not approve, by act of Congress, he has had his name replace aeronautical engineeer, Hugh Dryden, on the name plate of the Dryden Flight Research Center in California.  This will thus henceforth be called the Neil Armstrong Research Center. Dryden, an aeronautical engineer instrumental in getting President John F. Kennedy to commit to going to the Moon via Project Apollo, will now have the surrounding test range named after him.

Comment by David Todd:  It has long been thought that NASA has about four or five more centres of excellence than it needs, and than it can fund.  However "pork barrel" politics usually intervenes when someone suggests shutting one down.  Some are wondering if this move might be a clever way of saving the station in the event that some of NASA's field and flight test centers will have to be cut. 

Flightglobal's Hyperbola column is sad to report that veteran BBC spaceflight correspondent Reg Turnill has died at the age of 97 on 12 February 2013.  Recruited initially from the Press Association to cover industrial news, Turnill became the BBC air and space correspondent in 1958 after reporting the launch of Sputnik the year before.  In this role he covered most of the key US and Russian manned space missions thoughout the 1960s and 1970s including the Apollo 11 moonlanding live from mission control in Houston.  As the last reporter in mission control in the evening, it was also Turnill who initially broke the story of Apollo 13's in-space explosion to the world. 

Turnill was on first name terms with many of the Gemini and Apollo astronauts, and had a friendly relationship with the rocket genius Wernher Von Braun well, though he later gave his view that Von Braun should really have been hung given his war record.  As a young British Army non-commissioned officer conquering Nazi Germany in 1945, Turnill had witnessed first hand the terrible conditions of the slave labourers being used to construct Von Braun's V2 (A4) ballistic missiles

In semi-retirement, Turnill covered manned spaceflight including Skylab missions and the Apollo Soyuz link up for British schoolchildren on the BBC TV's Newsround programme. Turnill wrote many books on the space programme including the seminal Observer's Book of Manned Spaceflight and he also edited the Jane's Spaceflight Directory. In later life, he was often to be seen, along with his nonagenarian wife Margaret, attending various space conferences and lectures, and even lecturing himself. We give our salute to Reg and give our condolences to his wife, family and friends.  

In its quest to pursue manned space exploration to the Moon, asteroids and onwards to Mars, NASA began its Space Launch System heavy lift launch vehicle programme after Project Constellation was cancelled. While the initial Block 1 SLS design has been finalised and will be able to carry 70 tonnes to orbit, it was realised that at least 130 tonnes may be needed for actual manned exploration mission architectures.  As such NASA intends to field later versions of the SLS using a pair of advanced boosters, more powerful than the initial SLS Block 1 version's five segment solid rocket boosters currently made by ATK which were derived from Space Shuttle technology.

NASA has yet to decide whether it wishes to use a solid fuel or a liquid fuel booster. Before it decides on a final configuration, on 1 October NASA awarded contracts to demonstrate key booster technologies to help them choose between the competing designs and reduce the risk in building the final booster.

ATK proposed using an advanced version of this expendable booster which would use a new lightweight composite casing, and would use a higher energy HTPB fuel instead of the current PBAN fuel. At circa 4.5 million lb thrust (20.000kN) this new advanced solid booster is expected to produce about 40% more thrust than the Space Shuttle's SRB. ATK received $51.3 million to construct and test elements of the oblique nosed booster including the composite case design, avionics and nozzle. 

Dynetics, along with its Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne partner, proposed a booster design using two improved variants of its F-1A engine, a throttleable version of the Saturn V derived F-1 engine. The team received $73.8 million to build and test key elements of their 1.8 million pound (8,000kN) engine including the gas generator and new simplfied turbopump assembly, and demonstrate new manufacturing processes for the combustion chamber and new injector plate.

 

The derivative of the F-1A engine is to be renamed.  Courtesy: Dynetics

In addition to new engines, NASA is interested in new tank technologies. As such, the final contract of $12.1 million was given to Northrop Grumman to demonstrate new techniques used in the production of composite fuel tanks including out of autoclave curing and in situ manufacturing.

A fourth contract is expected to be awarded to Aerojet to reduce the risks in the development of a new one million lb (4448kN) thrust dual-combustion chamber LOx/kerosene burning AJ-1-E6 engine via demonstrations of combustion stability in the new design.

The Aerojet bid surprised some. While the AJ-1-E6 (formerly nicknamed the AJ-1000) has a more efficent cycle than the Dynetics/Rockedyne F-1A design, it has less than 60% of its thrust, meaning that four engines will be needed on each booster as opposed to only two of F-1A derivatives. This has implications on cost.

Christopher Crumbly, NASA's Manager SLS Advanced Development Office was careful to be unbiased in his comments with respect to merits of the competing teams: "The F-1 has great advantages because it is a gas generator is a very simple cycle." said Crumbly.

"The Ox-rich staged combustion (of the AJ-1-E6) has great advantages because it has a higher Isp (Specific Impulse - a measure of rocket efficiency equivalent to the momentum change per kg of propellants). "The Russians have been flying Ox-rich for a long time".

"Either one can work," Crumbly added, before remembering to note: "The solids can work."

The liquid teams hade made play of their higher performance which should make the SLS be able to lift 150 or more tonnes to low Earth orbit, promising more flexibilty for manned lunar and asteroid exploration and unmnanned exploration missions. In response, Donald Sauvageau, Director, Advanced Programs, ATK noted that 130 tonnes is the performance target set by NASA, and so long as that this was met it would be overall development and life cycle costs that counted in the competition.

"When you look at a given performance that they (NASA) need, it is going to be a very tight competition between liquid and solid boosters." said Sauvageau.  

All in black: ATK's Advamced Concept Booster for SLS.  Courtesy: ATK

When asked whether both liquid teams could compete on cost when compared to solid rocket boosters, Steve Cook. Director of Space Technologies, Dynetics, who used to run the now-defunct Ares launch programme for NASA, noted that their Dynetics/Rockedyne team would not be competing if it did not think that they could do it.

Cook further made the point that while liquids were preferable to solids on performance, super-high efficiency engines are not really needed for booster engines and it was thrust that counted.

"A gas generator is a much simpler engine," said Cook, "The point is not just to have performance for performance sake, just performance to drive affordability."

Christopher Sanders of the Strategy and Business Development NASA programmes section at Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne commented on Aerojet competitor's apparent weakness in needing four engines on each booster: "Four engines is not better from an affordablity point of view... We like two engines," he said.

With respect to their own team's bid, Cook hailed the reliability record of the past F-1 engine and noted that the many of the major elements of engine had kept to the same dimensions as past F-1 family to keep this reliability and avoid problems with combustion stability that can affect new designs.

While the Dynetics/Rocketdyne team remains a leading contender, some have expressed concerns over difficulties in recovering the tooling from drawings for the F-1A engines - a programme that ended in the 1970s. Sauders dismissed these. "Its been done before on the J-2X programme" he said.

While a decision on a which booster design NASA will procede will not take place until 2015 (and it may yet be a design not including one of these contenders - SpaceX comes to mind), if one of the two current "liquid bids" does win out against the ATK's solid booster design, then which ever 'liquid' team is selected Aerojet is likely to be the winner anyway. That is, if Aerojet's holding company GenCorp has its planned acquisition of Rocketdyne from United Technologies accepted.

After a national service of remembrance was held at the Washington National Cathedral the day before, the cremated ashes of Apollo 11 commander and first moonwalker, Neil Armstrong, were finally put into the Atlantic in a ceremonial burial service on hte USS Philippine Sea on 14 September.   Also in attendance at the service were members of Armstrong's family including Armstrong's son Eric (Rick).  The while the final sea burial was performed by his wife Carol, the ceremony itself had most of the elements of a traditional US Navy burial at sea including a formal rifle salute.

Before becoming a civilian test pilot and NASA astronaut, Armstrong had served as a US Navy pilot in the Korean War.

Armstrong's ashes were buried at sea. Courtesy: NASA/Bill Ingalls

A national act of remembrance for Neil Armstrong was held at the Washington National Cathedral (on of whose windows include a moon rock brought back by Apollo 11) on the morning (local time) of 13 September.  The service,which was broadcast by NASA TV, held had traditional religious elements with hymns, choral anthems, and bible readings (Armstrong was thought to be a believer in God if not organised religion). 

During the service, President Kennedy's Rice University speech which committed the nation to go to the Moon was played. There was also a strangly moving performance of "Fly me to the Moon" sung by Diana Krall.

The US National memorial service for Neil Armstrong.  Courtesy: NASA TV

The congregation included Neil Armstrong's second wife and widow, Carol, and his family as well as many of his friends and colleagues including fellow Apollo 11 moonwalker Buzz Aldrin.  The US Navy, within which Armstrong served as a jet pilot during the Korean War, was also heavily represented.  Those playing tribute included current NASA Admininstrator Charles Bolden and Apollo 17's commander Gene Cernan who gave eulogies and his Apollo 11 crewmate Mike Collins who led the prayers. 

Some amusing anecdotes were told including how Armstrong was asked by a young questioner what went though his head when he realised he had only seconds left showing on his fuel gauge during Apollo 11's lunar descent.  After thinking for a while, Armstrong's reply was that "when the gauge is at empty we all know that there is a gallon left in the tank". 

It was also noted by Gene Cernan that in being a civilian pilot as an astronaut even though he was ex-US Navy, Armstrong had not actually received his gold "astronaut wings" until a special US Navy ceremony inl 2010 - to Armstrong's immense pride. .

Comment by David Todd: As this excellent and moving service ended one had an overall sense that Neil Armstrong, pilot, astronaut, and reluctant hero, was a good man - and one that would want to have in your astronaut crew, in your family, or just as one of your friends. God bless Neil Armstrong - wherever he is.

On 12 September 1962, in a speech made at the Rice University, Houston, US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy announced a commitment to land men on the Moon by the end of the 1960s.   The speech set NASA on a mission that it achieved with Apollo 11's landing in July 1969.  It should be noted NASA had only just managed manned orbital spaceflight starting with Johh Glenn's flight earlier that year.

While NASA was shocked by the speech's key timeline committment in the phrase "We choose to go to the moon in this decade," (this new deadline caused many a sleepless night in NASA's then leadership), fifty years on, the administration is now celebrating the anniversary of the speech that set it on its way to its greatest ever achievement. 

President Kennedy at Rice University on 12 September 1962.  Sadly, he was not able to see the fulfilment of his committment as he was assassinated the following year.  Courtesy: NASA

It has been announced that the late Apollo 11 astronaut commander, Neil Armstrong, who became famous in becoming the first man to set foot on the Moon, will be buried at sea. The burial will be made after an official rememberence service to take place at the Washington National Cathedral, Washington D.C. on 13 September.  

The Navy-style sea burial will be apt as Armstrong was a US Navy fighter bomber pilot during the Korean War.  It is thought that this will be a private family affair. A private memorial service has already been held earlier in September in Cincinati, Ohio, where family, friends and fellow Apollo astonauts attended.

Neil Armstrong, the first man to set foot on the Moon in July 1969, has passed away on 25 August, three weeks after his 82nd birthday.  Armstrong had been recovering from medical procedures to alleviate his blocked coronary arteries, when complications led to his death. 

Tributes to Armstrong's life and achievements have been received from around the world. President of the United States, Barack Obama, made his own tribute to the late astronaut even though Armstrong was a critic of his own space policy: "Neil Armstrong was a hero not just of his time, but of all time," President Obama said.  

Photograph of Neil Armstrong taken before the Apollo 11 flight.  Courtesy: NASA

Neil's early life has aviation take centre stage

Armstrong was born on 5 August 1930 in Wapokoneta, Ohio.  As a child, Armstrong developed a lifelong interest in aviation and became a pilot by the age of 15.   Armstrong started studying aeronautical engineering at Purdue University as a US Navy sponsored student and served in the Korean War as a US Navy fighter pilot.  He finally gained his degree in 1955. He later gained a Masters degree in 1970 from the University of Southern California.

Becoming a civilian test pilot as part of the NACA forerunner to NASA after the war, Armstrong flew the supersonic Bell X1-B and the later hypersonic X-15 rocket plane.  He joined NASA in 1962, taking part in the Gemini and Apollo programmes.   

The 38-year-old Armstrong was chosen as mission commander for Apollo 11 due to his piloting skills, his intelligence and, most importantly, for his coolness under fire, in reference his duty to fly the lunar module down to a safe landing - or know when to abort the attempt..  

While there were other great astronaut commanders and pilots on the programme (Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, Pete Conrad, John Young come to mind) Armstrong was chosen for the key role of being the first pilot astronaut to attempt to land the lunar module on the moon (note that while Aldrin was titled lunar module pilot, in reality this was a systems monitoring role). 

Armstrong had previously shown ability to make the right decisions when his survival was at stake.  In his time as a US Navy fighter-bomber pilot in the Korean War, he managed to put his damaged  F9F Panther jet, which had been shot up by ground fire, over safe territory before he ejected.  During an X-15 flight, Armstrong had bounced off the craft off the atmosphere which, in turn, caused the craft to subsequently overshoot the runway at Mach 3.  He just managed to glide back to the landing strip.

Becoming an astronaut and becoming known for his "coolness under fire"

Having joined the manned space programme in 1962 he commanded Gemini 8 and again saved this mission from disaster by his quick thinking.  By firing re-entry control thrusters during a rapid continuous roll due to a jammed thruster, he saved the craft before he and his crew mate, David Scott, blacked out   By using the re-entry thrusters however, flight rules stated that the mission had to be terminated immediately.   

There was another close escape for Armstrong during his astronaut training, a turbofan powered Lunar Landing Training Vehicle that Armstrong was piloting went out of control but he managed to eject seconds before its fiery destruction.  It was later adjudged that if he had left his ejection another half a second he would not have survived.  Armstrong's colleages were suprised to find him, after this near disaster, coolly at his desk catching up with his paperwork.

Scott and Armstrong relax after their emergency landing in Gemini 8. Courtesy: NASA

Such escapes led NASA to believe that Armstrong would know if and when to eject the ascent module from the landing module if things went wrong during the descent and landing stages of Apollo 11.

It was also decided, to the chagrin of his fellow moonwalker Buzz Aldrin, that Armstrong would also be the first astronaut to set foot on the Moon.  This decision was made by NASA high command for reasons of Armstrong's ego-free nature, his official civilian status (Armstrong actually had a higher salary compared to his military astronaut colleagues), and probablly due to his relative good looks.  Later it was found that it was practically better due to the hatch configuration favouring the commander leaving first.

A scary landing but Armstrong safely passed over the rocks before skidding it in

NASA's choice seemed vindicated as Armstrong's coolness under fire was needed during Apollo 11's landing.  During the descent several alarms went off due to a computer overload/landing radar mismatch but these were ignored by the astronauts after mission control gave them the all clear.

On approach, it became apparent that the landing module wasfurther down range than expected (later traced to unintentional extra delta V caused by the undocking and  flyaround check before landing).  As a result the craft was heading for a boulder strewn crater, and Armstrong decided to toke manual control pitching the craft forward to fly onwards to a clear site..  With Aldrin calling out the fuel states and height, Armstrong managed to land with just seconds of fuel to spare. The landing was made in a cloud of dust and with a slight drift at 0.67 degrees North, 23.47 degrees East on the Moon in the Sea of Tranquility at 2017 GMT on 20th July.  Armstrong remained critical of himself for the slight skid in landing (too much skid could have collapsed the lunar modules legs) and was embarrassed over later causing a guidance system gimbal lock just before docking during the later ascent.

Armstrong became part of history when he set foot on the Moon at 0226 GMT on 21 May). after the landing with Aldrin following shortly afterwards.  The reason for the missing "a" Armstrong's first words:  "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind", which were apparently inspired by an Apollo programme engineer, has been famously argued about since. 

 

Armstrong and Aldrin on Moon as imaged by the Maurer 16mm camera from the window of the lunar module.  Courtesy: NASA

The crew returned to the lunar module with their samples and photographs (Armstrong took most of the photos and the only really clear forward shot of him is via the lunar module Maurer 16mm cine camera set on intermittent mode.

Armstrong had taken an especial interest in how the hypergolic propellant ascent engine would be fired as he suggested a mechanical tap arrangement rather than electrical relays.  It was a heartstopping moment for both Armstrong and Aldrin when the found that the engine arming circuit breaker switch had broken off.  A pen lodged in the respective hole solved the problem.  

Armstrong and Aldrin thus successfully launched themselves back into lunar orbit and managed (despite the gimbal lock mistake) to dock with the command and service modules piloted by Mike Collins ready for return to Earth.  After their landing and carrier recovery the three crewmen had to have a period of quaranteen.  After this Armstrong and his fellow astronauts went on a world tour to celebrate their acheivements variously meeting heads of state around the world including Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.  

While more serious than other Apollo crews, Neil Armstrong and his crewmates were not without humour. On their return, they filed travel expenses claims detailing their journey from Houston, via Kennedy Space Centre, to and from the Moon, to the Pacific and back. The crew expressed mock regret that a mileage claim was not allowed.   The crew was also amused to find out that a customs form for the imporation of their moon rock samples also had to be signed.

Armstrong carried part of the left propellor and some wing fabric from the 1903 Wright-Brothers flyer on the journey and a pin that was to have been carried by Apollo 1.

Privacy became the biggest concern for Armstrong

Armstrong soon became weary of public adulation and retreated into the world of academia becomiing a lecturer in aerospace engineering at the University of Cincinatti in 1971. 

Neil Armstrong appreciated that he was just the pinnacle of an effort involving tens of thousands of workers, albeit at the dangerous end of that pyramid. Nevertheless, while NASA was pleased with its choice of pilot, it remained disappointed that this intensely private man had retreated from the public eye at the first opportunity. 

In semi-retirement from 1979, Armstrong retreated to his farm though he did have business interests including acting as a spokesman for some US firms and as a director on the boards of several companies.  While he did appear in commercials for the motor manufacturer Chrysler in 1979, for the most part Armstrong was careful not to cash in on his name, refusing even to sign autographs.  

Neil Armstrong gave further service to his nation In 1986, when he served on the Rogers commission which investigated the cause of the STS-51L Space Shuttle Challenger launch failure.  Armstrong had previously taken part in the investigation into the fatal Apollo 1 launch pad fire.

Armstrong felt forced to speak out against Obama's manned space policy

Armstrong was careful to keep out of politics and only really became involved after President Obama's decided in 2010 to cut Project Constellation while, at the same time, agreeing to end the Space Shuttle programme before any new manned launch system was ready.  Armstrong called the cuts to Project Constellation "devastating" and lamented that USA was, for a time, losing its own capability of launching astronauts. 

Neverthless, while criticising its timing, Armstrong later noted that he was, in fact, a supporter of commercialising manned launches, though he warned that such inexperienced systems would probably have reliability issues early in their careers.  

Armstrong also became part of the astronaut and senate-led clamour for a new heavy-lift launch vehicle which would be essential for long range space exporation after the Obama administration looked set to be dragging its heals over its development.  This battle was later won with the decision to build the Space Launch System (SLS) and to keep the Orion spacecraft developed by Project Constellation.

Neil Armstrong happily met President Obama at the White House during the 40th anniversary celebrations of the moonlanding in 2009, but less than a year later they became opponents over the future of the US space programme.  Courtesy: NASA

Sadness in his private life

While his professional life had major achievements, Neil Armstrong's personal life has had some sadder moments.  After a five year separation, his first wife Janet (nee Shearon) divorced Neil Armstrong in 1994 after 38 years of marriage.  Armstrong remarried in 1992 to Carol Knight.

By his first marriage, Armstrong had three children: Eric, Karen and Mark.  Sadly, Karen died from a brain tumour at the age of two - an event which reportedly caused the anguished Armstrong to retreat into his work. 

For the most part Armstrong's health was good.  There was one notable incident in which he tore the tip of his figure off after his wedding ring became caught in the wheel of at truck as he jumped off while working on his farm near Lebanon, Ohio.  Armstrong coolly collected it and packed it in ice, and surgeons later successfully reattached the finger tip.  Armstrong suffered a minor heart attack in 1991 before his final heart-related death in 2012. 

Remembering Neil Armstrong

Flightglobal/Ascend's space team gives its condolences to Neil Armstrong's family and friends.

On his death, Armstrong's family paid tribute to "a very good man" and a "reluctant American hero" adding: "For those who may ask what they can do to honor Neil, we have a simple request. Honor his example of service, accomplishment and modesty, and the next time you walk outside on a clear night and see the moon smiling down at you, think of Neil Armstrong and give him a wink."

As we salute this gallant and modest man, it will be the least that we can do.

 

 

Two years ago, the space team at the Ascend consultancy (now part of Flightglobal) did an analysis on which nation was likely to be the first to return men to the moon.   In the analysis notional odds were assigned to each which country as a measure of our estimation of which was the most likely to win this "race back to the moon."  The analysis was originally done during the slow news summer period (aka the "silly season") and published in the month of August 2010 as an interesting fill-in analysis piece.   Despite this, Ascend's space team performed the analysis seriously and we stand by the surprising conclusion that the Isle of Man was the fifth most likely "nation" to be first back to the moon.  

Here we revisit this analysis and examine each nation's progress in this "race" and there are signs that the Isle of Man has improved its chances of being first to get its astronauts and flag on the moon, or rather because other contenders have fallen away. 

The Manx flag may one day fly on the Moon - if only they can get there.  Courtesy: NASA (Image has been modified)

INTRODUCTION:  Big rockets, complex spacecraft, and (lots of) money needed for manned lunar return

Most space faring nations have realised that missions to Mars and asteroids remain distant prospects in terms of cost and practicality and that the Moon represents a much easier-to-achieve exploration starting point. 

Nevertheless, finances for all contenders remain tight (even for China) to the point that most of the nations and organisation involved in this race  only have budgets allowing them to produce the necessary elements for such a mission in sequence rather than in parallel. 

Interestingly, contenders appear to have prioritised these elements differently, working on some parts of a mission before others.  For a space faring nation/organisation to land astronauts/cosmonauts/taikonauts/cosmonauts on the moon, five major elements are usually regarded as being needed: 

1. A heavy-lift launch vehicle carrying 70 tonnes or more to low Earth orbit (LEO).

2. A manned capsule/service module and transfer stages for passage and return from lunar orbit.

3. A lunar landing/ascent craft to carry one or more astronauts to and from the lunar surface

4. Rendezvous, guidance and docking technology.

5. The political will and financial resources to develop the systems to accomplish this.

Which nation will reach a position to mount the first manned lunar landing return missions remains to be seen.  Below is the Flightglobal/Ascend's updated analysis of each nation's relative chance expressed in the form of racing odds.  Please note that Flightglobal is not bookmaker and does not have a gaming licence and  thus cannot actually take bets: 

USA:  Orion and SLS progress but NASA has no lunar lander or service module

After years of being kept in the operational cul-de-sac of low Earth orbit (LEO) by the Space Shuttle, and with manned lunar exploration fast approaching being lost to living memory (Update: sadly, since this article was first written first moonwalker,Neil Armstrong, has passed away), NASA has decided that it would cede launching of LEO manned spaceflights to the commercial sector, and, instead, become a deep space exploration agency.   

The first problem was where to go. While other destination targets had been considered (passing asteroids, Phobos, Mars etc.), NASA's exploration chief, Bill Gertenmaier, noted in a speech at the Space Ops conference in Stockholm, that the moon is most likely to be the prime target for NASA's exploration strategy.  His reasoning was that there was lack of opportunity to explore passing near Earth asteroids,while the relatively high energy levels adn time constraints needed for Mars/Phobos e or asteroid belt exploration would require more complicated missions.

The political perform deep space exploration actually lies within the US Senate rather than within the White House.  It was the Senate that insisted that the Obama administration and NASA commit to building a US heavy lift launch vehicle after detecting obfuscating delays from the Obama Administration.  The result was that the Space Launch System (SLS) was selected.  This evolvable design will be man rated with initial versions being capable of launching at least a 70 tonne payload into LEO.  Later versiosn would be developed to carry payloads of above 130 tonnes with intermediate levels of capability between those.

All versions are to use four 1.86MN (at sea level) liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen burning RS-25D/E Space Shuttle Main Engines in the main core stage.   The final Block II versions may use either advanced lightweight versions of its Solid Rocket Booster design or a new liquid fuel types possibly using derivatives of the 7.8MN Saturn V F-1 engine  

Progress on this new launch vehicle is planned to be  steady rather than spectacular with the first flight of the vehicle not due until December 2017.

 

 

Later Block II versions may use either advanced solid or liquid fuel boosters to carry payloads well above 130 tonnes to LEO.  Courtesy: NASA

NASA has made progress in other parts of the mission.  From the remnants of the cancelled Project Constellation programme,the Orion space capsule survived to become the a key part of the new exploration programme (it is now officially called Multi-purpose Crew Vehicle).  Progress has been strong with the core of Orion delivered to the Kennedy Space Center, Florida, in July to allow engineers could fit the heat shield elements to the craft.  

 

Artist's cutaway illustration of Orion capsule - but it needs a service module and lunar lander if manned landings are to take place.   Courtesy: NASA

While the progress on SLS is steady, and Orion capsule is good, less sure is the supply of a suitable service module.  It has been mooted that the European Space Agency might supply this based on a reconfigured ATV cargo craft. 

While Orion will fly initially on a Delta IV Heavy shakedown flight, the first mission of an Orion on an SLS flight on the EM-1 flight in December 2017.  This will use a Block 1 configuration (5 segment solid rockets and an RL-10 powered upper stage) and will have a 70 tonne LEO payload rocket. 

During this flight, an unmanned version of the Orion capsule will re-enter the Earth's atmosphere at 11km/s after its seven day flight around the moon.    In 2021, the first fully crewed Orion lunar flight will take place.  This flight called EM-2 will last 10-14 days and will use a J-2X powered upper stage.  The number of 1.3MN J-2X engines on this SLS upper stage has yet to be disclosed.

At this point in the discussion the missing element of NASA's lunar exploration plan becomes evident.  While Project Constellation had designs for a manned lunar lander called Altair, to date no new development programme for a manned lunar lander has been started.  Low budget technology test programmes continue however, even if they do have the occasional explosive set back as happened to Morpheus lunar lander test vehicle in early August at the Kennedy Space Center.

Better news for NASA is in respect to docking, guidance and lunar orbit rendezvous techniques.  NASA's Apollo pedigree means that the administration is, to date, the only space agency to successfully mount full blown landings of astronauts on the Moon.  This expertise still lies within the agency - albeit that many of its originators have either passed away or retired.

Summary:  USA remains Favourite with odds of 6-4 (lengthened from Evens in 2010).  

USA remains favourite despite not having a suitable lander and an as yet to be developed service module for Orion.  In other words they may be first "around the Moon" but not be able to land on it.  A lander will take about four years to develop so there is still time and, of course, NASA has its Lunar Excursion Module design experience to fall back on. NASA's odds have lengthened not because it is underperforming but because there are signs that China and Russia are getting their acts together.

CHINA: Its lunar intentions are known but it needs a lander and heavy lift rocket

China has the political will, and probably the finances to mount a manned lunar landing.  In fact, the nation has already declared its intention to land its astronauts on the Moon.  China's space programme already has a lunar capable spacecraft in the form of its Soyuz-derived Shenzhou spacecraft design (the re-entry capsule of Soyuz was designed for return from lunar missions).   It is also known that China is working on a lunar lander design.    

The separation of Shenzhou 9 from the Tiangong 1 mini-space station in June showed China's growing prowess in rendezvous, docking and undocking operations.  Courtesy: CCTV

Meantime, China is gaining experience of orbiting the moon with its Chang'e unmanned orbiter spacecraft series and plans an unmanned lunar landing with its Chang'e 3 lander/rover mission in 2013. China is also rapidly mastering the skill of making rendezvous and dockings with the recent Shenzhou 9 docking with Tiangong 1 as an obvious example. While its manned extravehicular experience has been limited, this is set to increase.

The missing piece in China's lunar ambitions is that the nation's space programme needs a heavy lift launch vehicle.  The problem is that it may not have a powerful enough engine.  Chinese space programme has the 1,157kN YF-100 rocket engine, developed for the boosters of the Long March 5, but it admits that it needs something about five times as powerful.  

However, engineers at China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT) are working on a new two combustion chamber version of this engine called the YF-650, which is likely to generate 6.4MN of thrust at sea level.  

Latest preferred configuration for the Long March 9 (CZ-9) super-heavy lift launch vehicle has an all Lox/kerosene first stage with four of these engines (25.5MN) and four Lox/kerosene single YF-650 powered strap on 3.35m diameter rocket boosters,  each with a 6.4MN thrust YF-650. This 'all LOx/kerosene' lift off design would allow the benefits of cross feeding of propellants,

With a total initial thrust of 51MN from all eight YF-650s, this is significantly more than circa 32MN lift off thrust that the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT) originally said it needed.  In this configuration, the Long March 9 would have the most thrust ever generated at launch, by a launch vehicle beating both the Saturn V (33.85MN) and even that of the 50MN thrust of the unsuccessful former Soviet N-1 moon rocket.  

Interestingly, the configuration is analogous to a sort of super-Saturn V design that many rocket engineers (including at NASA) were calling for during the SLS design process.

 

The favourite configuration for the Long March 9 (left) uses LOx/Kerosene propellants for both the first stage and boosters.  An alternative is to use a LOx/Liquid Hydrogen first stage with solid rocket boosters. Courtesy: CALT

The second stage of the Long March 9 prefered configuration would be all cryogenic using Lox/liquid hydrogen for propellants and would use two YF-220 2.15MN engines.    The payload to LEO is estimated to be circa 130 tonnes.   Analysts predict that such a launch vehicle will be able to launch Apollo style exploration missions using a single launch vehicle.

The Long March 9 (CZ-9) would probably fly from a launch site on Hainan Island.The Long March 9 (CZ-9) would probably fly from a launch site on Hainan Island.

Alternative configurations are still being considered including an SLS style vehicle using solid rocket boosters (albeit four of them) attached to a YF-220 LOx/Liquid Hydrogen four engine core with a YF-200 powered upper stage  Presumably, this configuration has also been considered with LOx/Kerosene liquid fuel boosters as well.  

Summary:  China is joint second favourite with odds of 5-2 (promoted from being 5-1 third favourite in 2010). There has been progress in all areas involving rendezvous techniques, docking and spacewalks and it has strong political will and financial resources.  However, China is doing things at its own steady pace and does not seem to think that it is in any kind of race.  The development of a new two chamber YF-650 rocket engine will decide progress. 

Any Chinese lunar landings will probably be "less capable" Apollo-style two crew landings/three crew overall and using just one launch vehicle, rather than the more ambitious three crew landings/four crew overall missions of other nations which need two launches.  Nevertheless, China may get there first even if this is not an official aim.

RUSSIA: Signs show it is working on a lander as Roscosmos ponders a heavy lifter

Mixed signals are coming out of Russia's Space Agency Roscosmos.  Russia has experience with mounting lunar rover and sample return missions, and of course, has decades of docking experience. Russia, in cooperation with India, is planning the landing of a small four-wheeled rover on to the surface of the Earth's celestial neighbour during the Luna-Resource/ Chandrayaan-2 mission set to launch in 2014.

With respect to manned landings, the head of the Central Research Institute of Machine Building Gennady Raikunov has noted that the work on a new manned lunar lander had already started.  Meanwhile, the Head of Lavochkin Scientific and Production Corp. Victor Khartov openly called for a Lunar landing programme. 

Officially, however, no lunar missions will be attempted until 2018 at the earliest.   Russia, of course did design the one-man LK lunar lander in the 1960s space race, but it never flew,

Russia is designing a new four-man New Generation Crew Transportation Vehicle, dubbed by commentators as "Orionski" after its similarity to the US Orion manned spacecraft, to replace Soyuz. .  Its unmanned first flight is set to take place 2015 will be on a Zenit rocket.  Later  manned flights of the complete spacecraft would use a version of Russia's Angara rocket.  These lights are likely to occur in 2018. 

 

Model of Russia's New Generation Crew Transportation Vehicle ("Orionski") at Farnborough. It is designed for lunar transport.  Courtesy: Flightglobal/David Todd

 

 

Models of the Angara rocket family at Farnborough showed one with a manned escape rocket system, but larger rocket will be needed lunar missions.  Courtesy: Flightglobal/David Todd

 

While Russia will thus have a manned capsule and service module and will potentially have a lunar landing and ascent craft, it is lacking a heavy lift launch capability.   It has been noted by Roscosmos that it will probably eventually need a heavy lift launch vehicle with at least a 70 tonne LEO launch capability, mimicking the US Senate's requirements for SLS.  However, the head of Russia's space agency, Roscosmos, Vladimir Popovkin, noted that Russia would only build one "when we need it."  

 

Nevertheless shortly afterwards Roscosmos announced a tender for heavy lift launch vehicle draft designs to be submitted by the end of March 2013.  it has been stated that such a launch vehicle would be launched from Vostochny Cosmodrome in the Amur Region not before 2018. 

 

Russia did build the unsuccessful N-1 moon rocket (its failures were the cause of Russia losing the original moon race). Nevertheless, Russia and Ukraine do have the most recent world experience in building working heavy lift vehicle.  The 100 tonne payload-class Energia-Buran launch vehicle system of the 1980s was used to launch the Buran space shuttle as well as the Polyus space laser defence payload.  And it is with this experience in mind that the President and General Designer of Space design firm Energia, Vitaly Lopota, made his bid by proposing the building a heavy lift launch vehicle as part of a "joint project" with other former Soviet states including Ukraine   The name for their proposed super-heavy carrier rocket would be "Commonwealth".  

 

This Commonweath rocket would however, not use the LOx/liquid Hydrogen core like the Energia-Buran or NASA's SLS, but instead use LOX/Kerosene rocket engines for the first stage and boosters with a LOx/Liquid Hydrogen second stage. The rocket would however use a derivative of  the Zenit launch vehicle 7.8MN thrust RD-171 rocket engines for its boosters. 

 

Other configurations for Russia's heavy lift rockt may  also be proposed.  Interestingly, before it broke up, Soviet Union had been examining using an eight strap-on configuration of the Energia rocket called Vulcain which would have had an LEO payload capacity of 175-200 tonnes.

 

While Roscosmos is not completely showing its hand, some Western space tourism firms are intent on using current Russian Soyuz hardware combined with Proton launch vehicles to make lunar flyby flights.  While very cramped, Soyuz can perform such missions.   Whether this comes to fruition remains to be seen. 

 

At the Farnborough Air Show, Vladimir Popovkin was cautious that such firms could raise the funds for such a mission even if they were charging $100 million per seat.  Nevertheless Popovkin remains in favour of close working relationships with private industry citing that he had had discussions with Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) about the future of manned exploration.

 

Summary: Russia is joint second favourite and its odds are now 5-2 (cut from 3-1).  Russia may be the dark horse of the race with the Putin/Medvedev administration wanting to restore the nation to space greatness.  If it does quickly build a "super-heavy-lift" rocket (Russia does have a record of starting rocket projects and then not finishing them) along with a suitable lunar lander then this could make them favourites.

 

ISLE OF MAN:  Becomes unlikely fourth favourite with "slow boat to Moon" plan 

 

The Isle of Man, at first sight, seems a strange and unlikely contender - it being a small and relatively unpopulated small crown dependency of the United Kingdom.  Nevertheless, due to its low tax regime and due to its special encouragement of space industry, it has grown its own impressive space capabilities covering space insurance, satellite operations and space manufacturing. 

 

However, it is its Excalibur Almaz firm based on the island that gives the Isle of Man its best chance to getting men to the Moon. This firm plans to use ex-Soviet Almaz/TKS hardware including two former space stations, and converting them into a kind of trans-lunar "space-liner" using low thrust but highly efficient electrical propulsion to traverse from low Earth orbit to the Moon.  This does away with the need to develop a super-heavy lift launch vehicle - a currently available Russian Proton will suffice.  Each spaceliner would have its own re-entry capsule craft for return to Earth. 

 

While at first sight sensible, the plan does present other problems including crew having to have space radiation protection while the craft slowly spirals through Earth's Van Allen belts. 

 

 

 

Excalibur Almaz plans to make low thrust appoach to lunar space using a converted space station as a kind of manned "space liner".  Courtesy:  Excalibur Almaz

 

This could be just the start.  At a recent space tourism conference at the Royal Aeronautical Society in London, Excalibur Almaz revealed that it has considered making lunar landings using a specially designed lunar lander but that this was something for the future and no formal approaches have been made to design firms.  Financing will remain the limiting factor for this imaginative bid.

 

As it is, the Isle of Man may be getting its own lunar landing experience of its own via the Odessey Moon enterprise which is attempting to land an unmanned rover on the surface as part of its attempt to win the Google Lunar X-prize.  

 

 

 

Odyssey Moon's MoonOne lunar lander could be the forerunner for manned lunar landers.  Courtesy: Odyssey Moon

 

 

Summary:  Isle of Man rises to fourth favourite and its odds are 20-1 (cut from 50-1 and up from being fifth favourite in 2010).  The plan is feasible if it can get funding for Proton launches etc. The firm has a genuine chance of making first "round the Moon" trip if it can raise the cash. Landings may follow if a suitable lander is built.   The bid even has NASA's technical if not financial backing.    Is the Isle of Man trying to emulate the space-race-winning "Duchy of Grand Fenwick" in Richard Lester's 1963 comedy film The Mouse on the Moon?  We hope so.

 

INDIA:  Manned space bid may come to nothing while lunar flight is decades away 

 

While India and its Indian Space Resource Organisation (ISRO) still has plans for a manned space capsule, and is involved in the joint unmanned Luna-Resource/Chandrayaan 2 lunar lander/rover mission with Russia in 2014, manned lunar space exploration probably still remains decades away. 

 

The Indian government's glamorous space plans remain under fire both internally and externally for considering having a manned space programme given that its transport, power and sewerage infrastructure remains in desperate need of funding.

 

 

 

Indian manned space capsule design.  Such a capsule could theoretically used for lunar trips, but India lacks a large enough rocket and does not yet have landing or rendezvous technology - though it hopes to gain some of this workig with Russia.  Courtesy: Flightglobal

 

As it is there are now doubts about whether India has the technical elements to mount even a basic manned space mission.  For example, while the GSLV-3 launcher, with which ISRO plans to make manned missions, has yet to fly, its GSLV forerunners have a very poor reliability record.  

 

If it unmanned lunar collaboration with Russia goes well, India may yet elect to become part of Russia's lunar exploration programme rather than going it alone. At one point Boeing seemed to be offering human spaceflight expertise to India.  Either way, its lunar ambitions will probably depend on access to Russian or US expertise.  

 

Summary: India drops to fifth favourite and its odds are 100-1 (out from 33-1)

India's chance is falling away as it lacks many of the key elements for such a mission.  Nevertheless a basic manned mission into orbit may be achieved.

 

REST OF THE FIELD:  We will believe it when we see it

 

While Japan remains keen on space exploration, its space agency JAXA has no manned exploration experience save for flying its hardware to the International Space Station and having its astronauts carried there by third parties.  Nevertheless, Japan does have a plan to have its own manned capsule as a development of its HTV cargo craft.  Whether this could ever be put to lunar use remains to be seen (Japan is a new entrant at 150-1). 

 

The European Space Agency remains in a similar position in being a participant of the International Space Station but with no manned launch capability.  It may become part of NASA's programme via using the ATV as a service module for Orion.  The ESA supported UK's Skylon cheap to operate space plane proposal might make mounting cheaper lunar landing transfer and landing flights (and even Mars flights) much more feasible but that is for the long term (odds for UK/Europe - now conjoined - stays at 300-1 but this may be an interesting long shot). 

 

Odds for smaller nations such as Iran and South Korea with mooted orbital manned space programmes are still rated as 1000-1 rank outsiders.