NASA: Change of heart on new rocket that would reuse shuttle parts?

[RGClark]

Just saw this:

NASA: Change of heart on new rocket that would reuse shuttle parts?
Design puts engines underneath familiar orange external fuel tank, with solid rocket boosters on sides and capsule on top.
September 12, 2010|By Robert Block, Orlando Sentinel Space Editor

DIRECT LAUNCHER
"CAPE CANAVERAL — Dozens of Kennedy Space Center engineers and more at other NASA centers have been working quietly behind the scenes since August to design a new rocket made from parts of the space shuttle — a project similar to one that an agency official only two years ago said defied the laws of physics.
"The design uses most of the existing shuttle hardware, including its current four-segment solid rocket boosters, the big orange external fuel tank and versions of the shuttle's main engines. The plan puts the engines underneath the tank, with the boosters on the sides and a capsule on top, to create a launcher capable of lifting 70 tons into orbit, more than enough to blast four or more astronauts and their gear into space."
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...ocket-boosters

Funny how people's, even expert's, opinions on whats "against the laws of physics" can change so quickly.

And what was responsible for the change of heart?

NASA: Change of heart on new rocket that would reuse shuttle parts?
(Page 2 of 3)
"What's changed, according to engineers and NASA officials interviewed for this story, is that with money running out for Constellation at the end of this month and no clear direction from Congress and the White House, the agency is desperately looking at ways it can launch astronauts into space quickly and affordably after the space shuttle is retired next year."
"Direct's supporters always claimed that the Jupiter rocket was the most "direct" and cost-effective way to get humans into space because it made maximum use of existing space shuttle technology and the shuttle workforce."
"It turns out Direct was right," said one NASA engineer working on the project but not authorized to speak publicly."
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...ket-boosters/2

Nice to know that experts opinions on whether an idea is against the laws of science is coming from objective scientific basis.


Bob Clark

[Glom]

DIRECT in other words?

[RGClark]

DIRECT in other words?

Exactly.

Bob Clark

[IsaacKuo]

And what was responsible for the change of heart?

A change of person. No person's heart changed, but the person was changed.

Former NASA Administrator Michael Griffin was absolutely insistent upon "The Stick" (aka Ares I). It didn't fit his agenda that DIRECT was more viable than the ill-conceived and ever increasingly problematic Ares I program.

Current NASA Administrator Charles Bolden is not insistent upon The Stick, and as such has no compelling reason to be irrational about DIRECT.

[ugordan]

A change of person. No person's heart changed, but the person was changed.

Current NASA Administrator Charles Bolden is not insistent upon The Stick, and as such has no compelling reason to be irrational about DIRECT.

Meanwhile, I wonder what happened to those posters that actively ridiculed the DIRECT proposal and its originators as a bunch of "armchair engineers".

6 years down the drain towing the Ares party line when it was obvious it was doomed for 3 years already, if not more.

[NEOWatcher]

I'd like to see a reference where NASA said it "Defied the laws of physics".
I've only seen past articles mention that NASA was not interested in it because it was insufficient for thier expectations.

I'd also like to know what they mean by "behind the scenes". It was previously publicly announced that they will be working on alternative HLV designs since the axes started falling.

If this design can be upgradeable in the future (with larger boosters or tanks or whatever) with relatively small costs, then go for it.
If not, then I'm not too keen on going for another "compromise" vehicle unless it gets us seriously moving again.

[Apollo17]

If this design can be upgradeable in the future (with larger boosters or tanks or whatever) with relatively small costs, then go for it.
If not, then I'm not too keen on going for another "compromise" vehicle unless it gets us seriously moving again.

I have a feeling a compromise vehicle is all we're going to get. Whether the ball gets rolling now or in ten years time is the question. And i think this is a real shame, as there are many talented and creative individuals working for NASA, i mean there's a reason that they're in the space program. However i think the fact that anything that doesn't use Shuttle derived parts has a much smaller chance of ever seeing the light of day is sad, as i reckon there's a good chance that those talented people could come up with something that is a whole lot better and could be made in a reasonable time frame and on NASA's current budget. It only takes a quick peak into the private sector to see some of the incredible ingenuity within it. Some amazing things are being designed and built. There's no reason why NASA has to be any different if not for flawed thinking on certain levels. Sure a new rocket with less shuttle derived parts would be unproven technology, so what? unproven doesn't mean it's going to fail, it means it's just that: unproven, nothing more nothing less. Launch a couple of tests, or don't, put everything up on teh first go like the shuttle. Whichever you prefer.

There's never going to be a 100% guarantee that everything is going to work perfectly anyway. If you look at Every program from Mercury to Gemini to Apollo to the Shuttle, there have been flights with malfunctions, that's nothing new. Whether you seek to move forward and use a new innovative design or look back to the 1970's and go with Shuttle derived components, there's a good chance that there will be a malfunction. Unfortunately that malfunction could potentially take the lives of astronauts, but that comes with the profession. As many former astronauts have said, when you become an Astronaut you don't buy into safety, and if you can't accept that don't be an astronaut.

Of course to combat that there's the argument that if NASA were to lose another manned vehicle the program would be shut down. Maybe it would, i don't know, but i feel that would be highly short sighted ( i expect someone to then come back and say alot of governemnt decisions regarding the space program are short sighted). When the Apollo 1 crew was lost, it was a tragedy and deep flaws were exposed, however they got their stuff together, got on with the job and they put a man on the moon. The space program was not setup to avoid risk, it was setup to risk it all on a foolhardy yet incredible dream of the human species.

Now i'm drifting further off the main topic. I guess what i'm trying to say is:
A) While i hope not, something like this may be as good as it gets for the next decade or so.

B) A, is a shame because so very many at NASA and in other areas have alot of talent in their chosen fields and i'm sure they are more than capable of designing an efficient, cost effective and reasonably reliable Heavy lift vehicle.

C) Shuttle derived or not it's not going to be 100% safe, you can take whatever precautions you like. However what will make a difference is what reward is attained from the risk of either the new rocket or the shuttle derived one with a vintage 1970's feel to it.

[boom stick]

Nasa should seriously invest in developing a tank insulation foam that doesn't turn orange in the sun's UV radiation. Orange is so 70s.

[NEOWatcher]

Nasa should seriously invest in developing a tank insulation foam that doesn't turn orange in the sun's UV radiation. Orange is so 70s.

So is the tank.

[kamaz]

with money running out for Constellation at the end of this month and no clear direction from Congress and the White House, the agency is desperately looking at ways it can launch astronauts into space quickly and affordably after the space shuttle is retired next year."
"Direct's supporters always claimed that the Jupiter rocket was the most "direct" and cost-effective way to get humans into space because it made maximum use of existing space shuttle technology and the shuttle workforce."

Translation: unfortunately we have exhausted all other options, so now we have no choice but to do the right thing.

[Glom]

However i think the fact that anything that doesn't use Shuttle derived parts has a much smaller chance of ever seeing the light of day is sad

The Space Shuttle has good parts. It's just the way they're stuck together that made the programme so underachieving.

Nasa should seriously invest in developing a tank insulation foam that doesn't turn orange in the sun's UV radiation. Orange is so 70s.

The first few STS launches the ET was white because it wore a giant condom.

[Garrison]

Translation: unfortunately we have exhausted all other options, so now we have no choice but to do the right thing.

An HLV without mission hardware is a waste of money whichever design they choose.

[kamaz]

An HLV without mission hardware is a waste of money whichever design they choose.

Maybe it is, but NASA has no way out either. SD HLV + Orion is the only thing that can restore NASA manned access to space in a reasonable time frame (if we discount the private initiatives). Given that the ISS is to continue flying until 2020, it will probably be used to ferry supplies and astronauts.

An SD HLV has some advantages over developing a booster from scratch:

- It already has infrastructure, tooling, supply chain and trained personnel.
- The hardware is 30 years old, so it's well understood and reliable. In 130 flights, only 1 was lost in the boost phase and that was because the equipment specifications were exceeded.
- It should be much easier to man-rate an STS-derived craft then a one build from scratch.
- It is much more difficult to completely botch a derived design, then a new one.

One big disadvantage I see is that an SD vehicle may end up having higher operational costs then a new vehicle would.

[Garrison]

Maybe it is, but NASA has no way out either. SD HLV + Orion is the only thing that can restore NASA manned access to space in a reasonable time frame (if we discount the private initiatives). Given that the ISS is to continue flying until 2020, it will probably be used to ferry supplies and astronauts.

An SD HLV has some advantages over developing a booster from scratch:

- It already has infrastructure, tooling, supply chain and trained personnel.
- The hardware is 30 years old, so it's well understood and reliable. In 130 flights, only 1 was lost in the boost phase and that was because the equipment specifications were exceeded.
- It should be much easier to man-rate an STS-derived craft then a one build from scratch.
- It is much more difficult to completely botch a derived design, then a new one.

One big disadvantage I see is that an SD vehicle may end up having higher operational costs then a new vehicle would.

And almost all those points you mention as pluses applied to Ares I, and evaporated when it came to actually engineering a new vehicle out of obsolete hardware.

[ugordan]

- It is much more difficult to completely botch a derived design, then a new one.

Nevertheless, this is where NASA (or should I say MSFC) succeeded admirably by employing a shuttle SRB in a role it was never meant to fulfill. Leading to all kinds of problems from performance, max-Q environment to thrust oscillation.

[Parallax M86]

Nevertheless, this is where NASA (or should I say MSFC) succeeded admirably by employing a shuttle SRB in a role it was never meant to fulfill. Leading to all kinds of problems from performance, max-Q environment to thrust oscillation.

There have been no reports of thrust oscillation being a problem for any Ares design since the Ares I-X flight.

[Garrison]

There have been no reports of thrust oscillation being a problem for any Ares design since the Ares I-X flight.

The Ares I-X is not an Ares design. It's just a mocked up second stage with an SRB attached, which as I understand it still cost $400 million. And wasn't the oscillation issue with the Ares 1 solved with modifications to the design that upped the cost and complexity while reducing the performance of the vehicle? There's nothing in the story of the Ares I or Ares I-X to inspire confidence in a NASA SD HLV.

[Parallax M86]

The Ares I-X is not an Ares design. It's just a mocked up second stage with an SRB attached, which as I understand it still cost $400 million.

I just mentioned the Ares I-X because it's the time frame where these reports of TO seemed to have stopped. The DM-1 test was what seems to have put the TO issue to rest but the media continued to talk about it up to the Ares I-X flight.

And wasn't the oscillation issue with the Ares 1 solved with modifications to the design that upped the cost and complexity while reducing the performance of the vehicle?

I haven't heard reports that it increased complexity and reduced performance. The solution was just a simple set of springs to act as shock absorbers. The SD HLV appear to just be the proposals for an HLV, not necessarily the main crew launcher. At this point the SD HLV choices seem to be down to most likely a choice between the Jupiter-246 or the Ares V. The two main competing ideas being proposed are almost identical to those rockets without being called by those names in the report.

But subsequent commentary after the DM-1 test and Ares I-X flight from NASA said it might not even be necessary when the tests showed much lower TO than projected. The estimate from a couple of years ago was always just a projection of possibility. Not a certainty.

Even though the Ares I-X is not the Ares I telemetry said TO was 8 to 9 times less than expected. Unless a single extra segment will make the assembly vibrate 9 times worse than a 4-segment.

There's nothing in the story of the Ares I or Ares I-X to inspire confidence in a NASA SD HLV.

I didn't mean there was. Just responding to Ugordan's comment which I assumed was referring to the Ares I.

[publiusr]

Something a bit more than DIRECT, but less than Ares V might be what is made. I wonder what ever happened to Bill Eoff, who talked about MAGNUM (BMDO launcher)?

[otakenji]

Instead of a kludge of Space Shuttle parts we should start with a clean sheet design for our heavy launch vehicle needs. Those SRBs are so inherently dangerous. Let's dump them for liquid strap on boosters.

[publiusr]

I don't know that DIRECT is a kludge--but they can speak for themselves.
Any artwork depicting Atlas V cores as strap-ons to a Delta IV?

[Garrison]

I don't know that DIRECT is a kludge--but they can speak for themselves.
Any artwork depicting Atlas V cores as strap-ons to a Delta IV?

I don't know of any but a clean sheet HLV based on the same principal as the proposed Falcon 9 Heavy, i.e. a common core with additional units added for more lift might be a good starting point. Problem is that none of the clean sheet possibilities have been given a look because the people in charge seem to be convinced there will be big time and money savings reusing shuttle technology, and this despite the Ares I problems.

[publiusr]

Ares I is dead. Direct Ares V lite is all that is really on the table now. Existing SRBs are fine for now.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/...hope-hlv-role/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/...uture-clarity/

A lot of older folks might not live to work on clean sheet. And we have experience with large hydrogen tankage, and RS-68s that can always be improved over time. I think this is as rosy a time for the DIRECT folks as there has ever been.

Later, after Direct Magnum/etc flies, then I expect a liquid strap-on--an EELV replacing flyback at a later date. Less flack that way. Then you have an Energiya lite system. Flyback boosters for the smallest payloads, flyback equipped EELV cores for medium, Direct for everything else.

[Garrison]

Ares I is dead. Direct Ares V lite is all that is really on the table now. Existing SRBs are fine for now.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/...hope-hlv-role/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/...uture-clarity/

A lot of older folks might not live to work on clean sheet. And we have experience with large hydrogen tankage, and RS-68s that can always be improved over time. I think this is as rosy a time for the DIRECT folks as there has ever been.

Later, after Direct Magnum/etc flies, then I expect a liquid strap-on--an EELV replacing flyback at a later date. Less flack that way. Then you have an Energiya lite system. Flyback boosters for the smallest payloads, flyback equipped EELV cores for medium, Direct for everything else.

I was referring to Ares I to point that there are no guarantees that recycling shuttle parts will produce any time or cost savings in building, and frankly I think people are being wildly optimistic about the DIRECT option, it's still just a variation on the theme of SD-HLV when all is said and done, it doesn't offer any huge breakthroughs or big advances. Whichever SD-HLV NASA builds its going to go over budget and over schedule unless they completely overturn their track record of the last 30 years.

[vulture4]

As long as shuttle was flying it made sense to continue, as the development is a sunk cost. But the SRBs and indeed the entire LC-39 processing infrastructure are in large part responsible for the high cost of the Shuttle and Ares, and would make any "Shutttle-derived" vehicle uncompetitive in cost. Just compare the number of personnel, man-hours and hazardous operations required to stack the SRBs, maintain the VAB, the crawlers, the MLPs, do the day-long rollouts. The total launch cost for the Ares I is about 5 times that of the Delta and ten times that of the Falcon. The idea that there is a cost savings in attempting to adapt obsolete Shuttle hardware for a new vehicle is an assertion of Mike Griffin that, to my knowledge, has not yet been supported by a shred of objective evidence.

[Damburger]

As long as shuttle was flying it made sense to continue, as the development is a sunk cost. But the SRBs and indeed the entire LC-39 processing infrastructure are in large part responsible for the high cost of the Shuttle and Ares, and would make any "Shutttle-derived" vehicle uncompetitive in cost. Just compare the number of personnel, man-hours and hazardous operations required to stack the SRBs, maintain the VAB, the crawlers, the MLPs, do the day-long rollouts. The total launch cost for the Ares I is about 5 times that of the Delta and ten times that of the Falcon. The idea that there is a cost savings in attempting to adapt obsolete Shuttle hardware for a new vehicle is an assertion of Mike Griffin that, to my knowledge, has not yet been supported by a shred of objective evidence.

Just a minor point; SRB development is not a sunk cost if you add another segment. As well as adding extra fuel you change the combustion dynamics of the booster completely. SRBs don't take at all well to serious modification.

[NEOWatcher]

Jim; do you have a reference for that?
With the push to get Orion done and no Ares I, I don't doubt your statement, but I would like to see it stated somewhere.

[RGClark]

A nice review on the history of the Direct launcher and NASA's gradual acceptance of it as its preferred approach for a heavy lift system:

A DIRECT handover – Movement leaders feel their work is complete.
October 14th, 2010 by Chris Bergin
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/...work-complete/


Bob Clark

[kamaz]

It looks like NASA doesn't like the SRBs after all, and Congress isn't happy: http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/11...on-heavy-lift/

“NASA has signaled an interest recently in possibly circumventing the law,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said in a statement after a meeting Thursday with NASA administrator Charles Bolden and deputy administrator Lori Garver. The law in question is the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, in particular the provision in Section 302 about the development of a “Space Launch System”, a heavy-lift launch vehicle. Hatch and other members of the state’s congressional delegation (most of whom also met with Bolden and Garver) are concerned that NASA might move in a direction that would cut out ATK, which manufactures solid rocket motors in the state.

Another tasty bit:

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) [said] “I remain very concerned that NASA continues to delay the transition from Constellation systems toward the new heavy-lift program while they needlessly explore private start-up technologies that remain unproven, require more money and are unfit for human-rated space travel.”

The best part is this:

Hatch acknowledges in Thursday’s statement that the act “does not require the new heavy-lift rocket to use solid rocket motors.” However, it adds, “delegation members say the Utah experts they consulted say the legislation’s requirements for the heavy-lift rocket can only be realistically met by using solid rocket motors.”

Von Braun must be turning in his grave.

[Garrison]

It looks like NASA doesn't like the SRBs after all, and Congress isn't happy: http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/11...on-heavy-lift/

Of course the Utah experts are right; since the legislation was specifically written that way. Is there anyone who still thinks this rocket is being built for any reason other than protecting jobs, specifically those of Senator Hatch and Representative Bishop? The SLS ain't going any further than the ISS, assuming that the inevitable overruns don't lead to it being canceled.