Recently in SLS Category

The U.S. House Science, Space and Technology Committee received expert evidence as they discussed which destination man should make its first port of call on its way to the planets.  Currently NASA and the Obama Administration is promoting a plan to capture a small asteriod which would be brought back to the Earth/Moon system using an unmanned spacecraft.  Once there a manned mission would be sent to it to take samples. NASA has allocated $105 million to examine the technologies needed.   But detractors of this idea say that the Moon would be a much better interim choice for manned exploration.

Most of the experts presenting to the committee thought that the asteroid plan was a poor idea and promoted returning to the Moon instead on the grounds that it would be easier to achieve and would give astronauts experience of exploration while proving key technologies.

Critics of the asteroid plan included Doug Cooke, a spaceflight consultant who was formerly in charge of NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate.  He remains firmly in the "Moon-first" camp as does Steven Squyres, Goldwin Smith Professor of Astronomy Cornell University.  Also opposed to asteroid plan was the Chairman of the committee, Republican respesentative Lamar Smith, who said in his prepared statement; "The Administration originally proposed a mission to an asteroid in deep space. A recent National Research Council report found little support for the proposal. Without a consensus for the original plan, NASA haphazardly created a new asteroid retrieval mission." 

One defender of the plan was Louis Friedman of the Planetary Society who co-wrote the Keck Institute for Space Studies Asteroid Retrieval Mission Study.  He noted that such a project would be able to test out new electric propulsion technologies for long range missions.

It is not just those wanting mankind to return to the Moon who do not like the asteroid capture idea. Robert Zubrin, President of the Mars Society and principal proponent of a "Mars First" strategy, has separately lashed the plan in a submission to Space News.as being poor value for money and a distraction from the main Mars effort.

NASA concept for Altair landing craft for lunar exploration.  Courtesy: NASA

Comment by David Todd:  NASA's original idea for a staged exploration strategy to Mars was to visit a passing "Near Earth" asteroid.  However, such asteroid targets are few and far between.  Worse they would undoubtedly be exploration time-limited.  Now it seems that if NASA will not go to the asteroid, NASA wants an asteroid to come to it - albeit with the help of a NASA unmanned spacecraft. 

This asteroid recovery idea is a foolish and expensive plan which will just divert funds from a proper manned progamme.  Instead these funds should be directed as a limited manned lunar exploration programme - a project which is a much more achievable and which would achieve much more in the short term in terms of exploration and science and would give astronauts experience of exploration before living memory of lunar exploration disappears.  

However, it has to be noted there are both financial and "mission creep" risks in going to the Moon as well.  Some will inevitably push for a permanent manned lunar base to be established, but the expense of constructing and especially servicing this will diminish the chance of a Mars landing.  As it is, costs of maintaining the International Space Station and its eventual successor(s) in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), even with the benefits of commerical crew lift capabilities, will be enough to cope with.   Thus for economic/cost reasons a manned moon base will have to wait until fully reusable launch vehicles and landing craft are eventually developed (possibly involving fuelling bases at the lunar Lagrangian points). 

Instead, while working on longer range interplanetary transport craft (possibly using electric propulsion).and landing craft for full Mars landing missions, NASA could quite easily undertake some Apollo-class limited lunar exploration flights as a simpler interim project.  In effect, this limited lunar exploration plan would be what Project Gemini was to Project Apollo of the 1960s: a limited but very successful operational test precursor to Apollo which successfully cleared key capabilities of orbital rendezvous and docking, as well as techiques for Extra-Vehicular Activity. 

Much of the hardware for a such a new limited lunar project is close to fruition.  NASA is on the way to having a capable heavy lift launch vehicle in SLS,  along with its very promising and now part-ESA-financed* Orion manned spacecraft (*using monies owed to NASA).  All that is needed now is a suitable manned landing craft.  As such, it maybe just the right time to dust down the mothballed Project Constellation Altair design.

NASA has selected the rocket engine manufacturer Aerojet to take part in the risk reduction effort to provide advanced booster concepts for later versions of the Space Launch System (SLS).  The $23.3 million contract has been awarded to allow Aerojet to reduce the technical risk in providing a liquid oxygen and kerosene oxidizer-rich staged-combustion engine. The company will fabricate a representative full-scale 550,000lb thrust class main injector and thrust chamber, and prepare to conduct a number of tests measuring performance and demonstrating combustion stability previously reported to be as part of its efforts to produce a dual combustion chamber engine of 1 million lb thrust called AJ-1-E6.

In addition to Aerojet, three other companies are under contract to develop SLS advanced booster contracts including ATK Launch Systems offering an advanced version of its current Solid Rocket Booster (SRB); Dynetics which is working with Rocketdyne to produce a new updated version of the Saturn V's LOx (liquid Oxygen)/kerosene burning F1 engine, and Northrop Grumman to demonstrate techniques to build composite fuel tanks.

According to the Flightglobal SpaceTrak database, at 78 orbital launch attempts in 2012, there were six less launches than in the previous year. With 139 spacecraft on these flights (Shenzhou 9's orbital module is counted as an autonomous spacecraft) there were two more launched in the year compared to 2011.This increase is mainly as a result of an increase in the number of small satellites of under 100kg (38 in 2012 compared to 23 in 2011) which were often launched as multiple payloads.  

Source: Flightglobal Space Review

There were six failures:two Russian Proton failures, two Iranian Safir failures (not acknowledged by Iran), one North Korean Unha 3 failure and one US Falcon 9 failure though this flight was partially successful. With respect to national flights,Russia took top position with 24 attempts (two failures) China maintaining the runner up spot. China matched its 19 launch attempt record in 2012 but went one better than the previous year by having no failures. USA was a distant third with 13 (1 partial failure).

Source: Flightglobal Space Review

Probably the most significant launch, in terms of international politics, was the first confirmed orbital success of North Korea's Uhna-3 rocket in December (after its April launch failure) - though the Kwangmyongsong 3-2 satellite payload showed no signs of working once it reached orbit. The implication of this first successful North Korean orbital launch is that a significant nuclear weapon payload could be launched by such a rocket onto nearby nations, even if its three-stage liquid fuel configuration makes quick and stealthy launches difficult to achieve. With warhead miniaturisation, even the USA could be theoretically be reached using a ballistic or fractional orbital bombardment technique.

Launch vehicle reliability year was characterised by some notable successes and also some embarrassing failures. Iran, using similar launch vehicle technology to North Korea, was unable to achieve success and had two unannounced failures of its Safir 2 launch vehicles in May and September respectively.

Source: Flightglobal Space Review

The Metop B launch by a Soyuz 2-1A Fregat rocket had a stage velocity shortfall which was rectified by its upper stage. The launch of GPS IIF-3 by a Delta IVM+ 4,2 had a similar escape when its upper stage RL-10 engine had less thrust than expected. Fortunately, the on-board flight control systems compensated for the lower thrust levels and the satellite reached the correct orbit.

Probably the "greatest escape" was that of the Dragon CRS-3 cargo mission to the International Space Station (ISS) which still made it to orbit despite an engine blow out during its Falcon 9 ascent. Luckily, the remaining eight Merlin 1C first stage engines had enough performance to get this prime payload into its correct orbit. Its lower priority Orbcomm OG2-01 communications satellite co-payload was not so lucky as there was not enough fuel to get it to its right orbit. Nevertheless, industry observers were impressed by the robustness of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle. While there were other issues with the lack of radiation hardness of some of  Dragon spacecraft's systems, NASA gained confidence that SpaceX would be able to move cargo to and from the ISS on a safe and regular basis giving it a lead over its Orbital Sciences competitor which has yet to launch its Antares rocket.

Less fortunate than SpaceX was Khrunichev and its International Launch Services marketing partner after an upper stage fault on their Proton M/Breeze M rocket stranded two communications satellites, Telkom 3 and Express-MD 2, in useless orbits.   Worse was to come for this derivative rocket from the 1960s. In November, the Proton M's Breeze M (Briz-M) upper stage underperformed again, this time stranding the Yamal 402 spacecraft. Fortunately, the Yamal 402 spacecfaft was able to use its own propulsion system to recover itself to its correct orbital location, albeit with some loss of lifespan. Nevertheless, questions are being asked about the Breeze M upper stage design and its quality control.  With its not improving failure rate and with its increasing cost base (caused by high Russian inflation) the Proton M launch vehicle's marketing firm, International Launch Services, is having its work cut out just trying to hold market share against its competitors.   Hopes are higher for its much delayed replacement, the Angara launch vehicle which is due to enter service in 2014.

Of the other main launch providers, Arianespace had a good year with a pretty full order book and seven successful flights of its main Ariane 5 ECA workhorse and the Ariane 5 has now had an impressive run of 53 flight successes to date. During the year, Arianespace also had further two good Soyuz launches and Vega's successful maiden flight. Arianespace finallly received the green light from the European Space Agency's formal council meeting in Naples to proceed with its Midlife Evolution upgrade to the Ariane 5 while also moving ahead with the preliminary design of the Ariane 6.

Ariane 5 has an unblemished record over 53 flights.  Courtesy: Arianespace

Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) continues to add to its bulging commercial order book with notable orders arriving from the US Air Force. While the Falcon 9 launch vehicle has a smaller payload than its main competitors, it benefited from a move to smaller "all electric" commercial communications satellites. However, while satellite operators are attracted to the new low-cost outfit, its overfull schedule has led some to take out back up reservations with other launch providers in case their launch is delayed. Sea Launch became a beneficiary of this.  

Sea Launch itself had some bad news after Intelsat 19's solar array damage was initially being blamed on its Zenit 3-SL (Sea Launch) flight in June. However, it all turned out well in the end as a formal investigation later found that the rocket was in the clear and that a design/manufacturing error by Space Systems/Loral that was the cause. Sea Launch managed two more successful flights.

With respect to larger rockets, as the Space Shuttle orbiters were retired to their museums, the NASA heavy-lift Space Launch System SLS), had its Space Shuttle main engine RS-25D/E configuration confirmed though the design of its advanced boosters has not yet been confirmed. NASA provided funding to retire some of the risk of the competing designs with a booster using a derivative Saturn V's F1 engine produced by the Dynetics/Rocketdyne team becoming the main liquid fuel contender against  ATK's advanced solid rocket booster.

The quest for reusability had a mixed year. While the US Air Force pulled out of its programme researching liquid reusable flyback boosters, Russia continues with its efforts concentrating on LOx (liquid Oxygen)/Methane engines for just such a purpose. That propellant combination figured again when Elon Musk, leader of SpaceX noted that his firm was pressing ahead with fully reusable launch vehicles and would use lox/methane burning engines to do so, with the hope of one day reaching Mars with such technology. To test the concept of reusable stages, SpaceX began test flights of its Grasshopper test vehicle.

Finally, in the United Kingdom, Reaction Engines whose slow-burn project to build a reusable space plane is now over 20 years old, finally announced that it had completed its ESA-sponsored test of its pre-cooler heat exchanger which it promises will revolutionise the aerospace and other industries. 

The writer of this article, David Todd, has a small shareholding in Reaction Engines. Phil Hylands contributed to this article. 

President Barack Obama has, by a small margin, been re-elected as US President.  Despite only just beating his Republican Party challenger, Mitt Romney, in the overall popular vole, the Democrat President held sway in the key swing states of Florida, Ohio etc. to give him a large majority in the key electoral college votes.

Having made some "foot-in-mouth" miss-steps early in his campaign and having made some policy errors before the election even began (most importantly by not agreeing to support intervention that helped the then beleagured US car industry), Mitt Romney, backed up by his Vice Presidential running mate, Paul Ryan, neverthless gave creditable performances as a hard worker, debator and speaker.  

Although the the poor economic situation was on his side, in the end, Mitt Romney was beaten because he failed to gain enough support from women, from the young, and especially from ethnic minorities (despite a growing middle class, the black vote was over 90% for Obama in most states, while Romney was also significantly behind in the Hispanic/Latino vote).  This effect was magnified by the efficient organisation by the Democrats in getting these voters to the polling stations.

Romney also suffered from a bit of meteorological bad luck.  By showing support to those suffering from the effects of Hurricane Sandy, President Obama looked like a man who was in charge and a man who cared.  And, in doing so, he regained the initiative in the opinion polls.  

Bolden flip-flopped in his support for Obama which the President may not forget

As the Republican "Grand Old Party" (GOP) mounts an enquiry examining what when wrong in its campaign, there may yet be other losers after this election race.  One may yet be Major General Charles Bolden, the current Administrator of NASA,   For having prevoiusly noted at the International Astronautical Congress in Naples that he was very much President Obama's man in being appointed by him, Bolden subsequently sought to distance himself from the current administration when a Romney victory started to look like a distinct possibility.  

According to the website/blog www.nasawatch.com when questioned about his political appointment at a briefing, Charles Bolden noted that he did not really see himself as a Democratic political appointee.  Bolden then went on to claim credit for brokering a deal between the present Administration and the US Senate (resulting in the commitment to develop the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy lift launch vehicle).  "If I had done what the President had wanted then NASA would just be a technology programme," said Bolden.  President Obama will probably not like that apparently disloyal comment one bit, even if it is probably true.

Obama tried to take credit for space programme - but it was not all his doing

Although US Space Policy was only a bit part player in the election campaign, it did figure more prominently in the race in Florida given its "space coast" region.  Romney's political attack on the current plan for the US space programme  was tempered by the fact that some of it, includng the promotion of private industry, was really already Republican policy.  On the other side, Obama could not really brag about his space achievments (though he tried) given that some of its more succesful elements e.g. the space caspule Orion, the promotion of commercial spaceflight, or the plan to bulid the SLS launch vehicle, actually came from past administrations, Republican think tanks, or elements in the US Senate.

The current US space plan, which is regarded by many as the best that could be done in the strained economic circumstances involves: encouraging commercial space industry to provide commercial launch capabilities to low Earth orbit; NASA developing key elements includng spacecraft and launch vehicles for a human space exploration programme to the Moon, passing asteroids and eventually to Mars (even if NASA can only afford to build one bit at a time); maintaining the US contribution to the International Space Station; having unmanned spacecraft programme to provide adequate defence, meteorological, environmental and exploratory capabilities, 

NASA may have to rethink its field centres but ISS will probably survive for now

While the current US programme is not a "magnificently rapid" way forward, it is one that is that is viewed as steady and well balanced and one that is just about affordable.  However, NASA is not out of the woods yet, despite Obama's election victory. The most imminent issue that it faces is the possibility of "sequestration": NASA could suffer from automatic cuts to government spending which will happen in January in the event that the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives, the Democrat-controlled US Senate and the re-elected President cannot agree a way forward.

Although the rest of his space policy attack was vague and weak, Romney was effective in noting NASA's financial inefficiencies during his campaign.  As such NASA, will be having a long hard look at its own finances - including whether it can afford to have so many technical and field centres around the country.  Likewise, soon NASA and the White House will have to decide they want to commit to continuing funding of the International Space Station (ISS).  While the ISS is a drain on NASA resources that it would probably rather spend on its longer term space exploration plans, cutting it would probably result in diplomatic problems.  As it is, for the time being the ISS provides the only destination in orbit for commercial spaceflight to go.

So as we say congratulations to President Barack Obama, we hope he sees spaceflight as something worthwhile and worthy of his support.  Space is the future you see.

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

The 63rd International Astronautical Congress (IAC) took place in Naples, at its Congress centre and exhibition venue at Mostra d'Oltremare during the first week of October.  The IAC Congress broke records with its attendance with 4,000 excecutives, scientists, engineers, students and space aficionados attending. IAC is organised by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF) and is held every year, usually alternating between a European and a non-European city.  Like the Olympics, cities vie with each other to have the honour of holding the Congress.

The IAC allows meetings of the major players in spaceflight, with public access to heads of the world's space agencies held in plenary sessions.  Scientists and engineers from all around the world present papers in strands of lectures on all subjects ranging from space debris to space law. There is a strong youth element to the Congress with students allowed to both attend and participate in events.  Social events, paid and unpaid are also provided by the organisers.

Naples remains a popular destination for airline carried visitors and those arriving by ocean.  The reason: Pompeii and Herculanium - those preserved towns of Roman civilisation that had the misfortune to be buried by falling ash and pyroclastic flows emenating from the eruption of Mount Vesuvius one day in AD79.  As it dominates the bay, Vesuvius remains a dangerous volcano (it last erupted in 1944). 

For those that could not spare the time to take one of the paid-for conference bus tours to Pompeii or Herculaneum, there was the famous museum in town.  It has the best of their beautiful artifacts from nearly two millenia ago.  These range from stoves and bedsteads to beautiful statues and mosaics.  In truth some of them in the so called "secret room" are a bit rude.  

Medusa mosaic from Pompeii as shown in Museum of Archeology (MANN) in Naples. Courtesy: Flightglobal/David Todd

Naples itself has a certain shabby charm. Some of its 19th Century architechture is beautiful but its streets are let down by piles of litter.   For pedestrians, crossing these streets remains a danger as drivers (especially those in taxis or on scooters) drive like madmen.  The town also had traditional "Italian job" traffic jams with choruses of hooters and horns.  There are also the ubiquidous strikes, this time by the public transport workers which caused the buses and metro to grind to a stop for a day.  Still, at least the free conference bus was unaffected even if its timetable was not attendee user-friendly.  

While violent crime has lessened significantly in the city, visitors are told to remain on guard for bag snatchers and pickpockets.  Neverthless, there is friendliness from the locals on show.  For those lost  in the back streets of the city, old ladies leaning out of their balconies will be quick to tell you the way to go - but only in Italian.  And for those who like to eat well, the food in the various restaurants and osteria is good  - especialy the sea food in this town.  

The Venue:  Good (in parts)

The venue was both good and not so good.  The main area for lectures was a five minute walk away from the reception and exhibition.  The catering facilities were mixed consisting of an acceptable but very limited rage pizzeria, a poor cafeteria, and several small cafe outlets sellling sandwiches and cakes.  

In the main reception and exhibition area there were two few too few toilets/washrooms, although the main lecture building was well catered for.  Meantime, temporary lecture theaters erected in the noisy exhibition area not insulated enough from sound to work well.

The Exhibition:  A bit spread out and missing US majors

The exhibition stands, which seemed to stretch in a long line from the entrance to the pizzaria, did have an international presence with those from South Korea, South Africa, Japan etc. Nevertheless, overall the exhibition did have a strong European bias with large stands from the European Space Agency and Arianespace. 

Many potential exhibitors have a policy of only exhibiting within their own countries/member states and so while European firms were in strongly represented, US exhibitors were few and far between with no sign of stands from NASA or Boeing or Lockheed Martin.  Having said that US rocket firm Aerojet was in attendance due to their European interests. 

While they may not have had stands, NASA and US firms did have strong contingent present in the lectures and plenary sessions, though some members of NASA's contingent ruefully noted that there should have been more but travel budget limits had prevented many other NASA scientists and engineers from coming. Some NASA attendees even had to present papers for their missing colleagues,

The United Kingdom had a good booth stand from Reaction Engines Limited displaying a video of test of one of its rocketplane engine heat exchangers.  Backing onto this was a small block from the British Interplanetary Society, Commercial Space Technologies and 4Links.

The Arianespace line up of launch vehicles stand attracts its fans.  Courtesy: Flightglobal/David Todd

Not surprisingly, Italy put on a good show. One of the interesting models shown was the Italian suggestion for a mini-space plane akin to the X-37/OTV.  The USV 3 is designed by Centro Italiano Ricerche Aerospaziali - CIRA in collaboration with Japan's JAXA and Germany's DLR to be a small orbital space plane.  Like the larger US Air Force X-37/OTV it would fit inside a launch vehicle fairing.  

The final configuration is still being worked on with the winged spacecraft with internal engine option able to vary its angle of attack currently being favoured over a lifting body with a fixed angle of attack during re-entry.

CSV 3 model on display. Courtesy: Flightglobal/David Todd

Opening Ceremony and reception: Quite good but there was a catering cock-up

As a change from usual IAC practice of having it in the morning, the opening ceremony was held in the early evening of the first day, in an outside arena near to the main conference block.   This worked quite well and the rain held off.  Apart from the usual speeches and tributes to the great and the good (past and present) including a Memorial Award givne to the family of the late Luigi Napolitano, a former IAF President, the main entertainment was a performance by a group of men and women who provided sensual dancing (within limits of decency) along with talenting singing and musical instrument playing.

The dancers and singers at the Opening Ceremony.  Courtesy: Flightglobal/David Todd

The downside was that the event started 30 minutes late, to the point that several of the audience were seen to leave early.  

Following this can only be described as one of the worst IAC reception of recent years with little food of relatively poor quality.  Worse, as thousands of individuals turned up like a hoard of locusts from the opening ceremony, the servers were totally overwelmed with people grabbing what little they had.  After this shambles many of the participants went away hungry and thirsty.

The Plenary Sessions:  A chance to see the leaders debate and see the coming men

Several Plenary Sessions were held, after the Heads of Agencies plenary session  on the first day,  following days has plenary sessions on subjects ranging from small and medium satellites and the trend towards "all electric' spacecraft, to how to launch such small satellites economically.

Other plenary discussion sessions debated the effect that spaceflight has on society, how disaster monitoring can be peformed fron space, and how to keep spacefaring peaceful,

A plenary on the future of space transporation included some of the "coming men" involved in reusable suorbital and orbital hardware including George Whitesides, CEO of Virgin Galactic, and Alan Bond, Founding Director, of Reaction Engines Limited.

Alan Bond, noted that his firm is developing the Skylon reusable spaceplane (this writer is a small shareholder). He noted that he views the launch market as changing with operators becoming distinct from manufacturers - much like the airline business of today.

"Operators should be operators. Manufacturers should be manufacturers," Bond said.

While Bond gained plaudits for Reaction Engines audacious bid for the ESA New European Launch System, a programme that was, as expected, won by the Ariane 6, most appreciated that re-usable technology one day be required.  But when would the market let it become economic? 

Having noted in the Heads of Agency plenary session that Europe would concentrate on those technologies that it leads on, Jean-Jacques Dordain refused to be drawn on whether ESA should support reusable technology more fully.  ESA has already supported some technology demonstrations at Reaction Engines, and has, in the past, examined liquid flyback boosters for the Ariane 5.  

Dordain noted that reusabilty only becomes economic at higher traffic levels and that growht was not at a level that would allow it to be supported for the time being.  Neverthless there are signs that reusability may yet have a place in ESA's launch programme with possible collaboration with Russia under on-going negotiation (see technical briefing).

With respect to regulation, NASA's exploration Associate Director of Human Exploration and Operations, William Gerstenmaier, accepted that as commercial companies tried to reduced the cost of acess to space, for good economics and innovation such firms might need  lesser certification standards even if he was not exactly in favour of doing this.

Technical sessions:  Real technology and ideas destined to remain just paper projects

There is not the space (excuse the pun) to cover all the subjects and strands covered in the technical sessions of the IAC.   Below is just a selection of ones seen by this writer.

While some presentations were, in effect, just organisations' public relations statements, most of the presentations were of of a standard varying between good and excellent - even if some concepts stretched credibility.  The trick that attendees needed to apply was to sift between those space technological ideas that were already in action or about to become so, and those which were destined to remain merely "paper projects".

Lunar missions from Earth-Moon L2 and how to remove lunar dust

Of particular interest was the presentation and paper by Michael Rafferty of Boeing (IAC-12.B3.1.10) which described the latest thinking on how lunar and asteroid exploration might be best  achieved.  The Boeing plan, which has NASA's initial support, is to set up a 'way station' called the Exploration Gateway Platform in a halo orbit at the Earth-Moon L2 Lagrangian point on the far side of the moon (one of the points where the gravitational fields of the Earth-Moon system are balanced).  This would, in effect, be a manned base and fuel stop which would allow a reusable landing craft and transfer stage to move to and from the Moon's surface.   Raffterty also noted that Space Launch System (SLS) would have enough capability to acheive such a mission. 

The message was re-iterated in a later paper IAC-12.D2.8.7 by Boeing (Donahue et al) in which they noted how the SLS launcher would help such a mission and how such an L2 base could be the basis of missions to the asteroids, Phobos and Mars..

Such a plan would need the development of new in-space cryogenic fuel storage systems. The mechanics which were described by George Flynn (IAC-12 D2.3.3) as he noted how such hardware would need cryocooler and passive cooling technologies.  A NASA mission dubbed POD (Point of Departure) is to demonstrate such technologies in 2016.

In his lecture, Michael Rafferty of Boeing had explained that reusability for any lunar lander could be hindered by abrasive lunar dust and that for lunar landing mssions space suits with docking ports could be a solution,  This would, in effect, insulate the interior of any landing and ascent vehicle from this abrasive dust. 

A cleverer method of lunar dust avoidance and removal was presented by NASA's Robert Meuller.  He disclosed that NASA had patented an electrodynamic system for dust shielding.  The system uses a multi-phase travelling electronic field to electrically repel/shake the dust off.  The system works on the basis that the dust carries a charge by its very nature.  The electrodes used can be in the form of very thin wires in fabrics or in transparencies (ideal for helmet visors).  The system is to be tested on the Materials International Space Station Experiment-X (MISSE-X) experiment on the International Space Station.

Launch Vehicles: ESA battles over Ariane 6 while reusability is not dead yet

While there were suggestions how Europe's small Vega might improve its paylaod performance, possibly using a stage using an engine called Mira which is based on a Russian LOx-Methane design, the Congress itself had bigger rockets on its mind.  

While SLS booster dominated the thinking of NASA and Boeing presentations including how it might be used to shorten Mars sample return missions or how its volume would be good for launching large astronomy satellites,and which SLS booster design should be used, in the European Space Agency arguments continue as to whether it should move straight on to design of its next launcher - the Ariane 6 - or continue with upgrades to the Ariane 5. 

Germany is in favour of the latter "Midlife Evolution" of the Ariane 5, which promises to improve its lifting performance to 12 tonnes to GTO (Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit).  Meanwhile France and the leadership of the European Space Agency leadership remain in favour of the former as they note that Ariane 5 continues to receive a financial subsidy of €120 million per annum.  They reason that their modular concept will allow launch costs to come down by more than 20% while at the same time allowing for just one vehicle to serve all markets from payloads 2,500kg to 8,000kg. 

Europe finds itself at a disadvantage in its propulsion choices for such a vehicle.  Jens Kaufmann of ESA described the progress on the design of the Ariane 6.  Without LOx/kerosene engines (the logical choice for the first stage of such a vehicle), the design is now likely to use either a two hydrogen stage core - the so called H-H option - along with small solid strap-on boosters which would be varied according to size of payload;  or have two solid stages with a hydrogen upper stage - the so-called P-P-H option, again with small solid stap-on boosters (IAC-12.D2.4.4).    

While Ariane 6 may be needed to replace the costly Ariane 5, many in the industry view building another expendable as a backward step.   Professor Uwe Apel of he Hochschule Bremen was damning of the Ariane 6 design noting that industry were effectively fooling the European Space Agency into building the launch vehicle they wanted. "There is no new technology in it" he said, addiing "they are just fitting together the building blocks they have."

  

For the time being it looks like it Ariane 6 will be an expendable similar to this artist's concept: Courtesy: ESA/C.Vijoux

In his presentation and paper IAC12 D2.4.6 Apel noted that reusable rockets still offered considerable cost savings.  He demanded that ESA should invest in new reusable technology.  "Risky options are always hard" Apel declared.

"The Ariane 6 is not a step forward." agreed Dr. Martin Sippel, a launch vehicle expert at the German Aerospace Agency, DLR, "but a fully reusable launch vehicle like (Reaction Engines') Skylon may be too ambitious."  

ESA has examined using winged flyback boosters in the past but currently thinks they would be uneconomic to operate at current traffic levels.  Courtesy: ESA

While seen as being currently uneconomic to operate by ESA (and also by the US Air Force), the interim alternative to full reusability of using liquid fuel flyback boosters along with an expendable core is currently being examined by the Russian engine firm Khrunichev.  It continues to work on such technologies including LOx/Liquid methane engines to fly on them.  Professor Anatoly Kuzin of Khrunichev described how such engines offer a better performance in terms of specific impulse over LOx/kerosene but also are much less susceptible to coking (carbon deposits) the cleaning of which is a barrier to economic reusability. Such winged boosters would separate from an Angara-class core vehicle at Mach 7 and at 55km altitude, would be designed to fly 25 times.  The technology development programme is funded until the end of 2013 and Kuzin expects that this this will be extended noting that Russia is serious about developing such boosters which could be flying by the end of the decade.

Kuzin also hinted that ESA is interested in working with Russia on such boosters and especially on their LOx/Methane engine technology. Initial negotiations have taken place with respect to cooperation on this liquid flyback booster technology.

Most interesting in terms of low cost access to space - at least for expendable launch vehicles -  were proposals to build so-called micro-launchers.  The D2.7 session had papers descirbing carrier aircraft concepts and even balloons carrying rockets (the "Rockoon" concept).  Others used hybrid rocket technology (the Romanian Space Agency is working on these).  The most advanced of these concepts, and the one most likely to fly in the short term is the US Army's Soldier Warfighter Operationally Responsive Deployer for Space (SWORDS) programme.

Modified image of SWORDS launch vehicl;e. Courtesy: US Army

This will use a three stage launcher - each stage having four engines which would be steered by varying the thrust on each LOx/Liquid Methane burning pressure-fed engine.  The payload to at 28 degree inclination low Earth orbit is expected to be 20-25kg but would only cost $1 million per launch.  Importantly it would give the US Army a rapid access to space.  The first launch of such a vehicle is planned for the Summer of 2014.

A larger low cost rocket is being built by Brazil, with technical backing from Germany's DLR.  According to current plans, the VLM-1 launch vehicle will become operational in 2016 with various configurations. The initial version will be able to fly 300kg payloads to LEO and the later configuration 2 able to carry 350kg. At a price of only $6 million per launch the three stage rocket would be attractive to many.

With respect to more revolutionary concepts, combined cycle rocked based propulsion research continues to have research done by JAXA (IAC-13.C4.5.1) on it. An eventual two stage launch vehicle is envisaged.

One of the more interesting suggestion for future transportation came from the Romanian Space Agency (IAC-12.C4.5.4) which suggests that ramjet engines could be used to work on the energy released from disassociation of Ozone and Nitrogen.   Whether the world will stand for its ozone being eaten in this way is another matter!

Kyusho University in Japan has made an advances in accelerating the ignition in  Pulse Detonation technologies (IAC-12.C4.5.7) basically using a metal tube in the middle of the duct.

Conclusion:  Overall a good conference

The IAC Naples Congress ended well.  Most enjoyed and were enlightened by it with the major only fault being the catering failure that blighted the main social event.

Having said that, in a few weeks time, most attendees will have probably forgiven this organisational oversight while, no doubt, retaining fond memories of this year's IAC and of the city of Naples that hosted it. 

The International Astronautical Federation (IAF) in the end voted in Naples to choose Jerusalem as the host city for IAC 2015 as it beat off bids from Pattaya Thailand, Istanbul in Turkey and Guadalajara in  Mexico. 

The host city for IAC 2014 had previously been selected as Toronto, Canada, while, next year Beijing has the honour of hosting IAC 2013.  As we wish that city good luck with their preparations, we say: "See you there."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

While gambling bookmakers, opinion pollsters, and election forecasters are currently split as to the likely outcome of the US Presidential Election, most are agreed that it will be the key "swing states" that will decide the election via the electoral college system.   As such, it is surprising that both candidates have been reticent on the subject of space.  This is, in spite of the fact that Florida which depends more than most on the US national space programme, is widely regarded as a key swing state. 

Things have become a little clearer since ScienceDebate website has sent published the answers that each candidate gave questions asking about their science and space policy. While their answers are often dressed in banalities of political electioneering (usually statements that everyone agrees with but do not indicate detailed policy) nevertheless interpeting their answers is illuminating.  Subsequent to this the Obama for America-Florida campaign has released a list of Obama's claimed "space accomplishments".   

Obama did good things for space (sometimes voluntarily) 

President Barack Obama has, of course, had mixed fortunes with his space policy.  The conclusion of Augustine Committee that Project Constellation was "not executable" under its planned funding levels, led President Obama to end Project Constellation. At the same time, while he did add extra flights, he decided to follow through with the Bush decision to end the costly Space Shuttle operation - though this was now to take place before a manned replacement was ready.  This caused consternation amongst US Senators and fomer astronauts (including the late Neil Armstrong) that NASA was to become reliant on Russia to get its astronauts into orbit - at least until a replacement was ready. 

Obama had previously made the controversial decision to fund commercial operators developing systems to supply NASA and the International Space Station with cargo and crew transportation.  This policy, which was much criticised at the time,  is now being applauded as it has successfully progressed.  Even concerns about crew safety have been somewhat assuaged by the development of hi-tech escape rocket systems. 

Nevertheless, while NASA shoujld soon be able to fly its astronauts into orbit by itself, without Project Constellation, for a time it appeared to be left without the means to perform proper exploration of the Moon, asteroids or solar system.  The White House was, at the time, also being accused of being deliberately vague over future exploration plans.

This became even more apparent with the White House's post-Constellation refusal to commit to the fast building of a new heavy lift rocket to replace Costellation's Ares V.  The US Senate eventualy intervened and, under pressure, the White House and NASA agreed to the construction of the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket.While his supporters do try to include Obama's support for SLS in his list of accomplishments, in truth, President Obama's hand was forced into starting this programme. 

Obama tries to look decisive

Sensitive to these claims of past exploration policy vagueness, Obama declares in his Science Debate responses that he has already set a goal of astronauts visiting an asteroid by 2025 and going to Mars in the 2030s.

"When our Orion deep space crew vehicle takes its first test flight in 2014, it will travel farther into space than any spacecraft designed for humans has flown in the 40 years since our astronauts returned from the moon. That is progress." notes Obama.

Obama has become the subject of space related jestful art - Courtesy: Zazzle.com

Obama had, in fact, originally planned to cancel the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle.  When opposition crew as a compromise, Obama attempted to designate it a space station crew lifeboat.  In the end NASA was allowed to develop it fully as an exploration vehicle under the offical name of Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle. 

This decision, along with the development of SLS, has allowed NASA to maintain its leadership in exploratory spaceflight.   As President Obama tries to take credit for these choices, in truth he knows that he really has been a reluctant supporter of the US manned space programme.

With respect to unmanned space exploration and research Obama is on surer ground - though NASA budget restrictions are causing some unmanned missions to be cancelled,  Nevertheless, his supporters note his support for climate change research including related Earth observation space missions. Obama was also careful to pay tribute to the achievment involved in the landing of NASA's Mars Curiosity Rover. 

Romney has weaknesses of his own

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has his own weaknesses.  As he praises the role of private enterpise in the space programme, Romney's Republican party remains split between wanting to support Obama's initiative on commecial space and wanting the US Space Programme to remain in government hands. Now that the Obama plan looks likely to be successful, neither Romney nor the rest of his party, know how to repond.  

"Space is crucial to technological innovation. says Romney in the ScienceDebate 2012 responses, before, adding. "If we want to have a scientifically trained and competent workforce, we must demonstrate a long-term commitment to the pursuit of innovation and knowledge."   Romney hints that past ITAR over-regulation had damaged space exports:  "I will work to ease trade limitations, as appropriate, on foreign sales of U.S. space goods and will work to expand access to new markets." he said.

At least, Romney agrees with Obama that space is a high value technology that is both milarily useful and a valuable source of trade and educational inspiration.  Both candidates note that they are in favour of continued international cooperation in space. "We have extended the life of the International Space Station, forwarding efforts to foster international cooperation in space," said President Obama. 

While noting that space is essential for both national security and even national pride, nevertheless, Romney confirms that under him money for spaceflight would remain tight. Romney states: "A strong and successful NASA does not require more funding, it needs clearer priorities."    

Romney beat Gingrich with a quip against his space plan Courtesy: addictinginfo.org 

NASA's priorities would probably not include a Moon base. As a candidate for the Republican nomination, Romney famously rubbished his opponent Newt Gingrich's plan for a Moon base by saying: "I spent 25 years in business. If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I'd say, 'You're fired.'"  

Conclusion: Space is fun but it is the Economy stupid

President Obama has made the correct decisions - even if for some of these he had to have his hand forced. However, while space policy might have an impact on Florida's voters, it has to be realised that for most space is really a sideshow to the economy.   If Obama can convince on that subject he will be re-elected - if not - he won't.

POST SCRIPT:  Obama should be winner say betting markets - not so fast say forecasters

The Iowa Electronic Market, a futures market set up by the University of Iowa that allows traders effectively to bet on who willl win the Presidential race, currently has the incumbent President Barack Obama of the Democratic Party as favourite in the election. He was, at the time of writing in early September, ahead of Mitt Romney of the Republican Party (GOP).   According to past elections, the market has been a reliable indicator of the result. British bookmakers have apparently taken this lead and currently also have President Obama as the odds-on favourite for the November election.  Of course things may yet change in these "betting markets" - probably according to how the US economy goes. 

Political analysts at University of Colorado have found that the economy is the best predictor of U.S. presidential elections since 1980. On the basis, their current prediction is that the 2012 winner will be Mitt Romney. Meantime, recent opinion polls show a very close race with Obama just edging ahead of Romney after being behind for some time.

 

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.