Recently in Orion Category

While the name Orion has been used as the name of real and fictional spacecraft before (e.g. Space 2001 - A space Odyssey's transport shuttle, and the latest manned spacecraft being developed by NASA)  the original Project Orion was actually about researching a high speed Interplanetary travel propulsion system. And one that used atomic bombs to do it  

As mankind contemplates journeys to other planets and how to get their economically, and fast enough to not run out of consumables, space propulsion scientists continue in their quest for specific impulse, that measure of momentum change per kg of propellants which could make such missions much more likely if this can be improved.  Some have considered nuclear thermal rockets which can double the specific impulse in comparison to chemical rockets - though using nuclear reactor technology in orbit remains unpopular ever since Cosmos 954 spread its nuclear entrails over Canada in 1978.  

Artist's impression of Project Orion spacecraft departing Earth. Courtesy: Adrian Mann

An even better way of improving specific impulse is to use exotic electric propulsion technologies which can offer ten-fold improvements.  However, they have one major drawback: they are very low thrust and to provide a practically usable amount they would need large power generation system.  In effect this means that they would need either massive solar arrays or a powerful nuclear reactor (yes - it is that N-word again).

There are, of course, other ways of using nuclear propulsion.  An idea originally proposed by Sanislav Ulan in 1947 was to use hundreds of atomic bombs to drive a spacecraft along. This idea was later turned into a full research project called Projct Orion. The history of the project was outlined at an evening lecture at the British Interplanetary society made by Douglas Liddle, a former engineer and aerospace history expert with experience in nuclear weaponry. 

Liddle described how the project was orignally set up in July 1958 after originally gaining traction after an unexpected observation during the Teapot series of nuclear weapons tests in the 1950s that some items could remain intact close to a nuclear detonation.  Bakerlite items had shown themselves to suffer only minor ablation - the logic being that if a nuclear bomb could be exploded near a pusher plate coated with a similar plastic or oil based material, it could be propulsed along without being destroyed.   

Cornelius Everett working with Stanislav Ulan produced a report noting that such a system could be used for space propulsion and Project Orion was formed under the auspices of Freeman Dyson at General Atomic.  The spaceships of various sizes were  designed use a magazine of nuclar devices (upto 900) which would be dropped from the rear of the spacecraft and exploded at one second intervals.   The Plutonium fuelled fission-class atomic bombs of 50kT yield would be specially designed using various explosive lensing techniques to aid the achievement of critical mass along with neutron tubes acting as initiators.  

Each bomb would have a Tungsten "bullet" designed to act as the working fluid of the device.   Scientists realised that a nuclear blast plasma itself would not offer enough mass and hence momentum to propel the craft along at fast enough speeds and that tungsten would be needed to blasted at the back plate to "pulse" the craft on its way.

To protect the crew at the front of the craft, there would have to be extensive nuclear shielding and shock absorbers various invoving double action gas and toroidal techniques.  The tungsten "bullets" would also act as shielding while not used.

The system had advantages over chemical systems.  Overall it was robust and less likely to be damaged by meteoroid strikes as propellant tankage would have been apt to do. Directional control of the craft would be made by either angling the back plate and by using chemical rocket thrusters on the craft.   In acheiving thrusts equivalent to several million Newtons and at specific impulses ranging between 2000-10000 seconds, a mission to Mars could be cut by several hundred days when compared to a Hohmann transfer chemical rocket alternative.

There were off course problems with the design.  Launching such a device containing several hundred nuclear weapons would require a very reliable and very large launch vehicle.  Apart from the shielding and shock absorption problem, the crew would also have to be protected from high and low frequency vibrations.

Experience in nuclear weapons tests in the upper atmosphere (e.g. the Project Starfish explosions) had shown that it was unwise to explode nuclear devices too close to the Earth's magnetic field and this causes large numbers of charged particles to surround the Earth causing new radiation belts.  Likewise, having bright explosions as the spaceship set off might have damaged the eyesight of observers.  Moving too far away from the Earth  would surely defeat the object of this transport system.

Nevertheless, after initial reluctance to support the idea, by 1964 even Werner Von Braun came to conclusion that such a device had merit.  But by then the Project was looking doomed.  For while NASA and the US Air Force initially supported the project, moves to take nuclear weapons out of space (the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (1963) banned nuclear devices being exploded in the upper atmosphere and the Outer Space Treaty (1967) banned nuclear weapons from being placed in orbit) meant that NASA withdrew its backing and the project was formally ended in 1965.

As a footnote, Doug Liddle reminded the audience that there was one country that has never been a signatory to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty:  China.   As such, one day it could be China that builds such a spacecraft like Project Orion to eather travel to other planets or to move an incoming asteroid out of the way.

The news that Lockheed Martin has finally got back into commercial manned spaceflight transportation by joining the Sierra Nevada led team building the second Dreamchaser spaceplane will probably be a relief to its board.  For while Lockheed Martin beat its main rival Boeing to the glory of building the Orion space capule for NASA's long range manned exploration extravaganzas (to borrow from Neil Armstrong's quip: Orion was the one part of Project Constellation that could not be "executed") in truth, this victory was a slightly hollow one.

The Dreamchaser Spacecraft -  Courtesy: Sierra Nevada Corp 

For as Boeing licked its Orion wounds, it translated its non-selected design into a smaller capsule called CST-100; one that was less capable, but one would be perfect for launching humans to and from low Earth orbit several times a year.  This flight rate compared to the one or two missions per year (at best) that the Orion space capsule might fly. 

Boeing's "Orion loser" CST-100 design thus became one of the likely winners of NASA contracts for regular crew transportation, along with the SpaceX Dragon and the Sierra Nevada Dreamchaser.  As such, Lockheed Martin found itself iced-out of this potentially more lucrative business, albeit that it had a launch vehicle interest via its man-rated Atlas V expendable rocket which will probably be used by the CST-100 and by the Dreamchaser. 

Having realised that it was in danger of missing much of this "commercial transportation boat", Lockheed Martin initially allied itself with ATK's Liberty capsule/launch vehicle contender - a design that was so far behind the others that it was never seriously going to gain NASA funding.

Subsequently, in NASA's most recent commercial crew development move, a two and a half award style Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) contract was awarded to Boeing, SpaceX and Sierra Nevada respetively, albeit the latter got substantially less funding that the other two.   The decision to give it lower funding, officially due to Dreamchaser's higher technical risk. may have been good news for Lochkheed Martin asitd may have been the spur for Sierra Nevada to get Lockheed Martin's involvment. 

So Lockheed Martin finally finds itself riding on a realistic runner in the commercial transportation race, and on one that might even win most of the business.  For while winged/lifting body vehicles such as the NASA HL-20-derived Dreamchaser do have more technical risk, they have considerable advantages over capsule designs.  For example, they offer a much more benign "lower-g" re-entries and have better cross range capabilities. Dreamchaser, as a sort of "son of the Space Shuttle" will be returned to a launch site in a Shuttle style gentle touch down, will not have to make higher risk parachute descents or rocket powered touchdowns or ocean spashdowns as it returns to Earth. 

Blunt body capsules come into their own when used on lunar and interplanetary flights as they are better able to stand up to the aerothermodynamics of re-entry into Earth's atmosphere at superorbital speeds. Hence this is the reason that Orion and its Apollo space capsule forerunner have large radius blunt rear ends.

Now that the European Space Agency (ESA) is charged with building the new service module for NASA's Orion manned spacecraft (full story here), its solar arrays are now expected to use the X-configuration that the ATV vessel uses (ESA's ATV is being used as the basis of the service module) rather that the previously planned round/circular ones.

Out with the old and in with the new:  The original Lockheed Martin design configuration (top) with its definitive round/circular solar arrays has now been replaced by a service module based on ATV-heritage hardware which will thus use rectagular solar arrays in an X-shape configuration (bottom).  Images courtesy: Lockheed Martin and ESA respectively.

NASA has released Schlieren imagery of supersonic wind tunnel tests of a scale model of the initial 70 tonne capable Block 1 Orion-capsule carrying configuration of the Space Launch System (SLS) which may carry astronauts to the Moon, The tests have been taking place in the Trisonic wind tunnel at the NASA Marshall Spaceflight Center.  The Schlieren imaging system allows lighter and darker distortions caused by changes in refractive indexes, in turn caused by density gradients in a fluid, to be visualised.  The technique is usually used to check aircraft and launch vehicle configurations at various attitudes for shock wave interactions and for air flow instabilities.

Schlieren photograph of SLS Block 1 configuration subject to the equivalent of a Mach 4 air flow  Courtesy: NASA/MSFC

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.

 

 

The Minister of State for Universities and Science, the Rt Hon David Willetts MP used the Farnborough International Air Show to announce the new 'Civil Space Strategy' setting out the direction for the UK space sector over the next four years.  With the UK space sector growing at 7.5% growth remains the aim for the UK Space Agency.  Other space agencies were taking note.  The Director General of the European Space Agency, Jean-Jacques Dordain, said that he was learning from the United Kingdom with respect to "taking competitive lessons" adding that it was the "right time for ESA to go for competitiveness and growth".

During the same press conference focusing on enterprise and cooperation, after which a cooperation agreement between the UK-based International Space Innovation Centre (ISIC) and Russian Skolkovo technology development foundation was signed, the head of the Russian Space Agency, Roscosmos, Vladimir Popovkin, noted via a translation via an interpreter, his appreciation of private space activity.  However Popovkin seemed cooler on those space firms planning space tourism trips around the Moon, noting that they may not have the funds to perform such missions - even if they were planning to offer the seats at a price of $100 million. These firms include the Isle of Man based Excalibur Almaz and the US-based Space Adventures which either plan to use past or present Russian space technology.

 

Popovkin emphasised that he had nothing against such commercial space firms and even noted that he had been in discussions with the US firm Space Explorations Technologies (SpaceX) about the possibility of mounting such flights.  In doing so, Popovkin described SpaceX CEO Elon Musk as "a young man who dreams of space flights to Mars". 

 

Elon Musk has confirmed to Flightglobal that discussions with Popovkin had taken place but noted that they were not as specific being about cooperation on manned lunar spaceflights.  Nevertheless, Musk noted his honour at being asked for his opinion on Russia's space programme and noted that Russia should consider breaking out of low Earth orbit operations for manned spaceflight.  He also advised that Russia should invest more in newer rocket technologies and involve newer space comanies by offering competitive fixed price launch contract competitions.

 

Russia's New Generation Crew Transportation Vehicle dubbed "Orionski" was on display in model form at Farnborough.  Courtesy: Flightglobal/David Todd

 

With respect to Russia's current national space plans, Popovkin said that the first flight of Russia's new launch vehicle, Angara, would take place late next year.  Popovkin noted that parts of Russia's New Generation Crew Transportation Vehicle (dubbed by commentators as "Orionski" after its similarity to the US Orion manned spacecraft) would fly on an unmanned test flight via a Zenit rocket.  Later flights of the complete spacecraft would use a version of Russia's Angara rocket, These flights would occur in 2018.

 

The manned version of the Angara rocket is shown wiht an escape rocket system attached.  Courtesy: Flightglobal/Ascend

 

The Angara version planned to carry humans was shown on display on the Roscosmos/Russian space stand sporting an escape rocket. With an overall launch mass, it can carry up to four cosmonauts.    With respect to a 70 tonne class heavy lift launch vehicle equivalent to initial versions of the US SLS design, Popovkin noted that Russia would build one "when we need it."

A Right Royal Start

With the help of some sweet renditions by the Prisma girl's choir, the King of Sweden, His Majesty, Carl XVI Gustaf, opened the biennial AIAA Space Ops 2012 conference.  This conference is for those scientists and engineers most closely involved in the operating of spacecraft, both manned and unmanned.    As he did so, His Majesty mentioned the benefits of spacecraft monitoring in helping the world's environment - a subject close to his heart. 

His Majesty. the King of Sweden. opens the Space Ops Conference.  Courtesy: Ascend/David Todd

Of course, Sweden's space programme which is most strongly associated with launching sounding rockets from Kiruna, also has an interest in satellite technology via SSC (formerly the Swedish Space Corporation).   It was in this context that industry expert Sven Grahn even joked that his Majesty once put his name on the Astrid 2 spacecraft and then openly wondered "Who will read it?"  It was a fair point.

Overall the SpaceOps conference was well organised with some good opportunities to make social and business connections.  Stockholm is a very nice city as well.

The organisers even provided a free lunch in the exhibition area which pleased most and had two social events including one at the Vasa ship museum (surprisingly there are no aerospace museums in Stockholm) to which most were invited to.

The Swedish Cavalry at the Changing of the Guard ceremony in Stockholm may have an old world "Ruritanian" charm but the modern Swedish nation has aerospace expertise ranging from jet fighters to space research and sounding rockets.  Courtesy: Ascend/David Todd

As usual, by having several strands of lectures running at the same time, attendees found that they could not be in two (or three) places at once.  Nevertheless, given the strict session timing, most people got to see their main priority lectures in the timetable.     Below is just a flavour of the Plenary and technical presentations.  It was noted that some of the US presenters had to previously self censor some of their technical elements to get their presentations passed by their respective ITAR Export Control officers.

Debris and interference threats discussed

In the technical sessions the threat of debris (and how to limit it) was discussed.  Emmet Fletcher of ESA detailed how radar and optical data was being used to check against known object catalogues in the attempt to track new hazaardous objects and put them on a database.  Fletcher's concern was that within 48 hours, the drag of the atmosphere could, depending on its density, change the track of an threatening object significantly.  His solution was to make more regular observations - though he admitted that more space and Earth-bound sensors would be needed for this.

Later in the conference, the subject of interference and jamming became a major topic of concern. Mohanned Elnour Ahmed of the Middle Eastern operator Arabsat noted that while only 10% of interference was deliberate it was becoming difficult to combat.  "The jamming of television signals cannot be stopped due to their nature." he said as he noted how jamming had recently been done for both political and even contractual dispute reasons.

With respect to the future of commercial communications, interestingly Mr Ahmed predicted that the Geostationary orbit would lose its significance in favour of low Earth orbit constellations.

Human Spaceflight:  Where next?

During the human spaceflight and exploration plenary, Veno Seiichi of Japan's space agency, JAXA, noted their plan to give the HTV cargo craft a return capsule capability.  Called HTV-R, this spacecraft could one day give Japan a human spaceflight capability as well.  Japan remains keenly interested in manned spaceflight.  Having pioneered the robotic arm berthing technique for the HTV (a technique which is now being used by SpaceX), JAXA is also working on high internal pressure space suit technologies that would elimiate the need for prebreathing.

When it came to the International Space Station's robot arm, Pierre Jean of the Canadian Space Agency, noted that it was having to face up to "vendor obsolescence" as he noted the difficulties of getting parts and expertise for items that were no longer being made.

While it was currently having to rely on Russia to launch its astronauts, NASA's Bill Gertenmaier described how testing of the Orion space capsule was proceeding satisfactorily and that acoustic testing was nearly complete. 

In respect to where mankind should go next, Gerstenmaier warned that there may not be enough asteroids in close proximity to Earth to allow such a mission to take place.  He suggested that it would take more or less the same Delta V (velocity change) to reach Mars as it would to reach one of these and hinted that the Moon would probably be the next likely place to visit.  

With respect to manned low Earth orbit operations, Gerstenmaier warned that while the commercial programme was cost effective, it had had to sometimes take big risks.  He gave the example the second stage of the Falcon 9 which was notd vaccuum tested until it was fired on its way to orbit.  Having noted that this testing short cut gamble paid off, he warned that this was not always the case. 

Gerstenmaier also noted a word of caution about the prospects for commercial space travel systems.  I don't think that space tourism is big enough to drive all the commercial companies," he said, suggesting that hopes that space tourism would fill any shortfall in government business could be unfounded. 

Atlas V lined up for commercial crew journeys while SLS pad may be reconfigurable 

With respect to commercial crew launch providers, while companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin one day plan to fly their craft off resusable launch vehicles, for the time they, along with Sierra Nevada, have chosen the Atlas V expendable launch vehicle to loft their spacecraft.  Mike Holguin of the United Launch Alliance noted in his presentation that any such rocket would likely need a dual RL-10 engine powered Centaur upper stage configuration.

NASA executives Jody Singer and Jerry Cook confirmed the running order of the initial flights of the Space Launch System (SLS),  The first flight dubbed EM-1 is to fly in 2017 using a Block 1 configuration (5 segment solid rockets and an RL-10 powered upper stage).  This 70 tonne payload rocket will project a "boiler plate" Orion capsule back into the Earth's atmopsphere 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 290,000lb J-2X engines on the SLS upper stage has yet to be disclosed but it is likely to be one or two.

NASA's SLS model shown at Space Ops exhibition was the Block 1 configuration - albeit with five core stage engines instead of the now agreed four.  Courtesy: Ascend/David Todd

Before both of these flights, the EFT-1 flight aboard an Atlas rocket will carry the Orion capsule in unmanned configuration along with the SLS adapter.

NASA is concentrating on limiting operating costs as NASA's Dr. Michael Watson noted. Having got wise to the concept that their current and future political masters are most interested in "costs now rather than costs past" the SLS team is concentrating on developing a heavy lift launch vehicle whose costs ot operate will be lower than past heavy lift launch vehicles. 

When the team was asked whether the 130-160 tonne payload Block 2 SLS in the full two advanced booster configuration (either using advanced solids or liquid fuel boosters) could ever reach 200 tonnes in four booster configuration, Jerry Cook noted: "We could go to four boosters at a later stage but for the time being this is restricted by pad infrastructure."    

This was confirmed by Hector Delgado, Chief Engineer of Design and Developments at Kennedy Space Centre.   While he admitted that the mobile launch pad was being modified with a rectagular slot to take the main core and boosters of SLS, it would be difficult to get first stage refueling lines in and keep the structure stable if the "hole" configuration in the mobile pad was changed to a four booster one.  

Likewise, as he noted in his paper that he was fully in favour of making the umbilical arms moveable on tracks on the launch tower to accomodate different sizes of SLS and even other launch vehicles, nevertheless, he noted that with only 50 feet (15.25m) of clearance, a safe launch of a vehicle using four boosters would be hard to achieve.  Delgado also noted the need to remove the umbillicals with certainty and with speed if unextinguisable/unthrottleable solid rocket boosters were used. 

While Delgado was keen to increase the pad's utilisation he had to admit that while it might only fly three times a year, SLS was always have priority over any other launch vehilces with designs on using the pad.

The NASA team also admitted that the flat spend on the SLS launch vehicle development has its own limitations, but they were making the best of it.  Hector Deglado was keen to note that to save costs, NASA was becoming adept at "using what they have" rather than building all new infrastructure and hardware.  For example, the main structure of the launch tower came from the now cancelled Project Constellation Ares launch programme, while the pad's water suppression tanks are from the Shuttle programme.  Meanwhile the flame trenches originated fromt the Saturn V Apollo era.

New methods of fuel measurement and automatic reporting for satellites in orbit

While manned spaceflight and interplanetary missions offered the "sex appeal" of the conference, the run of the mill operations of commercial spacecraft continued to enlighten.  

One interesting presentation by Boris Yendler of YSPM in conjuction with the Middle Eastern communications satellite operator Arabsat.  The YSPM consultancy has perfected the technique of using heating rates to determine the amount of propellants there is left on a spacecraft (in space conventional fuel gauges to not work).  The system was used to measure how much life was lost during an emergency manoeuvre on Arabsat 2B.

Richared Burley of NASA described the unfortunately named ARS (Automatic Reporting System) which automaticallly registered anomalies to the Hubble Space Telescope allowing ground controllers to do other things unless an urgent case came up.

While ESA/NASA Mars exploration ExoMars programme was torn assunder when NASA defected, the Moon is apparently still a place for space cooperation. China's Chang'e 3 lunar rover which is due to be launched in 2013 will use ESA ground stations during its mission.  The rover is to carry a robotic arm. 

Keeping ISS safe - even in an unmanned condition

After the cargo craft, Progress M-012M (ISS-44P), failed to reach orbit last year, the threat of having to abandon the International Space Station  made ESA and NASA update their procedures for keeping the station alive if it ever does have to be left unmanned.

Thomas Hiriart of CAM noted that that there was a trade off between risks in the procedures for doing this.  For example, switching off the fans inside Columbus module seems sensible from a fire safety point of view, until it was realised that for air safety, smoke detection and condensation reasons it was best to leave them on.

Meantime Andrew Cecil of NASA noted how experimentation on the International Space Station could now be controlled directly by users via the Ku-band transponders of  rather than by the S-band transponder system.  It was noted that suitable safeguards are in place to ensure station safety.

Unmanned exploration:  Electric thrusters are good but venting causes problems for comet hunters

Carl Brandon of Vermont Technical College announced that there would be a technology test flight in July for the "Vermont Lunar Cubesat" which would one day be flown to the Moon using Xenion Ion electric thrusters and might even use a ballistic capture trajectory. 

The Cubesat test flight to a 500km, 40.5 degree inclination, low Earth orbit will be on a multi-satellite Minotaur launch vehicle in July 2013.  

While using efficient electric propulsion an eventual cubesat misson round the moon is planned, there are downsides to using such technolgy.  For example, its low thrust means that it can take 23,000 hours to reach interplanetary velocities of circa 7km/s.  There are also some other mission limitations of having such a weak thrust. 

One of the interesting papers presented was that of Richard Rieber of JPL as he disclosed the problems and solutions in approaching the Comet Hartley 2 during the EPOXI add-on mission. Specifically, comets doe not stand still as gas vents act as thrusters given them velocity increments in unexpected directions.  His advice for future comet missions is to have enough high thrust trajectory altering capability to make last minute corrections - and electric thrusters simply do not have enough impulse for this.

There were other problems on the mission Rieber noted.  EPOXI, in being an add-on mission to the original Deep Impact spacecraft, found that it had to slew itself backwards and forwards to acquire data and transmit it back to Earth during its approach to the Comet Hartley 2.  

Earth Observation:  benefits yes but privacy remains an issue

While the Earth Observation plenary panelists from DLR, Eumetsat, DMC, Google Earth and CNES were keen to note how imagery from Earth observation spacecraft was helping mankind by monitoring the weather and volcanos, preventing genocide and even helping individuals decide which house to buy, but as imagery satellite and aerial imagery improves the issue of privacy remained a concern as was apparent from questions posted online from the audience.  

As the experts went on to explain the advantages of the METOP satellite series for meteorology, it was noted that some data such as atmospheric pressure readings was usually much better recorded in situ. 

It was then suggested by Ed Parsons of Google Earth that all smart mobile phones should carry satellite trackable barometers as an ap (application). He then quickly tried to reassure the audience that this information would be kept completely anonymous.  And some believed him.  

The Space Launch System (SLS) rocket that NASA hopes to send its astronauts to the Moon, asteroids and even Mars with, could soon be getting a new high thrust engine as part of its booster configuration. In fact, the engine may not be new at all. This was after Dynetics and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) announced its partnership to off the Apollo-era Saturn V F-1 rocket engine for the competition which initially involves bidding for a NASA risk reduction analysis contract.

In a press release statement accompanying the announcement, Ron Ramos, Pratt & Whitney's vice president for Exploration and Missile Defense, noted the F-1 engines high thrust-to-weight ratio and good reliability as he said: "We offer a domestic booster design that takes advantage of the - more - flight-proven Apollo-Saturn F-1, still the most powerful U.S. liquid rocket engine ever flown," 

Flightglobal/Ascend previously noted that manned moon exploration rockets needed bigger rocket engines - mentioning that there was a dearth of US rocket engines in the correct size.

With the LOx/kerosene burning F-1 back in the game things now look very different. The Dynetics/PWR team proposes mounting two of the proposed 1.8million lb (8,000kN) thrust F-1 derived engines on each of these boosters as an alternative to an advanced solid rocket booster proposed by ATK. The team hopes to win some of the $200 million of NASA funding in a 30 month project to research the viability and risk of producing a liquid fuelled booster.

The selling points of those proposing liquid fuel boosters is that they are throttleable and would provide much more lifting power than a solid rocket booster, increasing payload of the most powerful version of the SLS (to carry a payload at least 130 tonnes to LEO).  According to the Dynetics/PWR team, using F-1 powered boosters would boost the peak SLS payload by a projected 20 tonnes compared to using solid rocket boosters.

Artists Impression of F-1 derivative engine powered boosters attached to the core SLS launch vehicle.  Note that the core will now have four or five RS-25D/E engines. Courtesy: Dynetics Inc.

While going back to 45 year old technology concerns some, the F-1 engine does have a precedent. PWR points out that later versions of NASA's SLS rocket, will be using the J-2X Lox/Hydrogen burning engine for its upper stage which is a derivative of Saturn V J-2 upper stage engine.

If the Dynetics/PWR team does decide to produce the F-1 or its more powerful F-1A derivative, it faces an uphill task. While most of the F-1 blueprints and some even actual engine examples survive, most of the original F-1 tooling has been destroyed.

Nevertheless, the news of a potential return of the F-1 (or its F-1A upgraded version) has been welcomed in the US space community, and not just because of an emotional and nostalgic response. There was concern that the only LOX/Kerosene burning rocket engines in the needed thrust range were either derivatives of the Russian-sourced  RD-170 which uses a highly effcient staged combustion cycle, or the unknown quantity of the yet-to-be-built SpaceX Merlin 2  which, like the F-1, uses a simple, if slightly less efficient, gas generator rocket cycle.

Apart from the Dynetics/PWR team and probably SpaceX, other firms likely put their hat in the ring to bid for funding include Aerojet with its its enlarged -1000 version of its AJ-26 engine and ATK with its Advanced Solid Rocket Booster offering.  It has also been mooted that Northrop Grumman my also pitch in with their past TR-107 design.  Both the AJ-1000 and TR-107 engines are thought to offer about one third less thrust than the F-1.

Should the core engines be changed next?

If large LOx/kerosene engines like the F-1 are chosen to be used on the SLS boosters then this has implications for the final design of SLS as they might be chosen for the core as well It was known that before the SLS design selection was finally made (under US Senate pressure to use Space Shuttle hardware), the propellant choice for the core stage was finely balanced between using LOx/kerosene and LOx/Liquid hydrogen.  In the end the latter was chosen though there were some regrets. Using LOx/kerosene as common propellants for both the core stage and boosters would give SLS the benefit of having cross feeding of propellants, allow for a shorter rocket, and have propellant ground handling advantages.

Having said that, a LOx/Liguid hydrogen RS-25D/E engine core does offer a higher Isp (specfic impulse) than the LOx/kerosene alternative, if less initial thrust. The advantage of this efficient propellant  combination really comes into play later, once the "brute force" lift off and initial acceleration of the fully loaded rocket is achieved.  In other words, in a similar vein to the Russian Energia concept, a "medium thrust" highly efficient LOx/liquid hydrogen engine core using high thrust medium effciency LOx/kerosene engine boosters could prove to be the best combination for SLS.

Nevertheless, if a change to a LOX/kerosene engine core ever happens for the advantages listed above, then there may be no further need for an expendable version of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME). This RS-25E version was to have replaced the 512,000lb (2,279KN) thrust ex-Space Shuttle RS-25D engines when they had run out. However, given that SLS flight rate is planned to be very low in its early years the first two flights are in 2017 and 2021 respectively NASA might have enough ex-Space Shuttle RS-25D engines in stock to make do until a new rocket is ready.

Sidemount might still have been a faster, cheaper choice for an interim HLV

NASA might have been wiser to have chosen the three RS-25D engine  Sidemount design as an interim Heavy-lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) instead of the initial Block 1 version in-line SLS now (now confirmed as having four RS-25D engines), especially if the expendable RS-25E engine version never comes to fuition. 

The Sidemount design, was, in effect, a wingless expendable space shuttle with which had much the same 70 tonne LEO performance as the initial Block 1 SLS but would have been much much faster and cheaper to produce - and importantly only used three RS-25D engines at a time.  In the end, the Sidemount concept was rejected in favour of the much more expensive SLS inline design over Sidemount's obvious lack of evolvability and, less convincingly, due to crew escape concerns (though Sidemount mightly only have been used as an unmanned heavy lift launch vehicle with any exploration crew launched separately to orbit via a commercial crew launch system).

The Sidemount Heavy-lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) design was rejected by NASA in favour of the inline SLS design. Courtesy: NASA

Conclusion (Updated): 

The reliability and high-thrust-to-weight qualities of the venerable F-1 engine, or rather its F-1A derivative, make it like a good choice for an SLS booster engine, especially as it should require little development compared to other engines.  That said, it would need some extensive work on its production facilities if it is ever to be used.  

According to rocket analyst Ed Kyle, a four RS-25E core SLS launch vehicle with two boosters carrying four F-1A engines should be capable of carrying 140 tonnes into orbit - and that is without an upper stage.  From that, we can deduce that with a J-2X upper stage and four twin F-1A boosters (if the core structure can be modified to take them), a 200 tonne-plus payload could be carried to LEO.  Past long-range manned exploration studies have long favoured such a hugely powerful launch vehicle of this payload class.

Design concept for heavy lift launch vehice using four twin F-1A boosters as considered in NASA Mars Reference Mission 1997.   While it would need its payload accomndation shortened by 40 feet to fit in the Vehicle Assembly Building it should have impressive lifting power.  A similar booster configuraton attached to a four SSME (RS-25D) engine core and using a single SSME (RS-25D) upper stage had a projected LEO payload of 226 tonnes.   Courtesy: NASA

Other configuations are possible of course.  For aerodynamic, flexibility and balance reasons, it might be better to go for a "Delta II style" cluster of narrower single F-1A engine boosters rather than two large two-engined boosters.  Such a configuration was briefly considered in the summary of the AIAA technical paper "The Saturn V F-1 Engine Revisited" written by Shelton and Murphy in 1992.

All this assumes that upgraded ATK solid rocket boosters using better propellants (HTPB instead of PBAN) and lighter casings (wound composite instead of the heavy steel casings) do not remain the preferred choice for SLS.  While less efficient and less flexible than liquid fuel rocket boosters, solid rocket boosters' cost/effectiveness may let them win any SLS booster competition, even if this means a smaller payload has to be carried.

Below and in the extended portion of this blog post are my notes from a telecon I had with a Lockheed Martin Orion crew exploration project manager in mid-2009. The bizarre situation was that I was at the Colorado Convention Center and Lockheed Martin Space Systems is only a car journey away but I couldn't get a rental car to get myself there (something was happening that meant all the rentals in and around Denver were taken) and the aerospace prime didn't seem too enthusiastic to come get me

I had planned to write the interview up at the time but events got in the way and despite repeated attempts since to get an interview with Lockheed to update this information and write a feature or lengthy blog nothing came of any of it

In the months since that telecon we have had news about the Orion heat shield being made by Lockheed, the choice of lithium aluminum supplier has been made with Rio Tinto Alcan annuoncing its selection and there have been Aerojet engine tests and ATK's Orion launch abort system attitude control motor tests; and one company called G Systems has made public the fact that it has delivered its test stations to the Michoud Assembly Facility for Orion. Next month I think there is an Orion pad abort test too

Anyway, last year I began to write "After a 10-month delay to its preliminary design review NASA has spent over $3 billion on its Orion crew exploration vehicle," and below are my notes

International Space Station (ISS) is higher inclination [than lunar orbit], requires more launch vehicles performance but the spacecraft is [now] lighter

Can carry 3,500lb more cargo to ISS with four crew

Four crew is now the baseline but requirements for that have not been spread through out Constellation

Amount of [crew] consumables didn't change very much [with crew reduction]

We have always kept the waste management system

[Astronaut corp] Crew has been very involved from the beginning

"Driving all the systems to an optimal path, we need enough time to check out the vehice before we fly"

Fan motors have a two year lead time

Putting together different options for Orion and its service module (SM), 17,500lb propellant for lunar, 8,000lb for ISS, SM can be used as a space tug, this could have 16,000lb

we are at 606G design for PDR and after next two cycles get to 606H

21 August have PDR board that lasts for a couple of days

credit: NASA / caption: plenty has been done and there is plenty more for Constellation

When this blogger saw the headline of this 30 March article by Aviation Week's senior space editor Frank Morring it seemed that the "program of record" that dare not speak its name had finally broken cover and spoken to the media after a self imposed vow of silence

But alas no, even Aviation Week's article had no detail on what was going on with Constellation and so there was still everything to play for, time to hit the phones and email - again

Now, by way of leaked emails, it seems that Constellation's management are preparing for any eventuality

But way back at the beginning on the 1 February the newly published fiscal year 2011 (1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011) budget request for NASA had notably continued funding the Moon return Constellation programme until 2012, even if it was cancelled this year

This blogger decided that whatever anyone thought of the programme's merit it was worth giving the space agency a call. A call to find out how the Ares and Orion and lunar surface systems project offices were planning to spend in FY2010 and FY2011 the $8 billion odd budgeted for for Constellation