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.

[Garrison]

So is the tank.

Isn't this just the HLV proposal that's been a bone of contention on the board recently? This is the spec put forward by the Senate/Congress and it's more likely to be the Boeing version rather that DIRECT; essentially identical but Boeing is less politically embarrassing for NASA. It really doesn't matter which model they choose, it's still an SD HLV and there's still no money for hardware to go with it.

[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.

[Garrison]

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.

The capacity of Orion was reduced from 4 to 6 and my understanding was that happened because of the changes needed to counter the oscillation problem. The various inline SD HLV proposals are all near identical and they will all suffer the same basic issues when it comes to turning them into working rockets; 30 year old technology, a lack of any clear mission, a lack of funding for mission hardware even if such a plan existed, and NASA's chronic problems with delivering on time and on budget.

[Parallax M86]

The capacity of Orion was reduced from 4 to 6 and my understanding was that happened because of the changes needed to counter the oscillation problem.

It's because the Ares I seems currently unable to carry more than 58,000 lbs. to LEO. At least from the information they've released. Whether that capacity can be increased any is unknown to me. The only solutions I could think of would be: making the J-2X more powerful; replacing the J-2X with an air-start SSME like was originally planned; or replacing the J-2X with RL-10B engines. The SSME is an efficient engine but has higher recurring costs. Designing a new air-start variety might slightly increase recurring costs per flight. The RL-10B is less powerful than either but the most efficient of the 3 and makes up for what it lacks in thrust with endurance.

If one goes with an EELV launcher the only type I can think of suitable for a 6-person Orion would be an HLV version of the Atlas V. Unfortunately I haven't heard any organized plans from ULA pitch the idea. The ACES plan uses just the regular Atlas V 500-series and/or the Delta IV Heavy which has a lifting capacity only the same as or possibly slightly less than the current Ares I specs.

The various inline SD HLV proposals are all near identical

I remember one version uses SSMEs, 4-segment SRBs and RL-10s in the upper stage. Sounds to me like a Jupiter-246. The other one uses RS-68s, 5 (or more)-segment SRBs and the J-2X. Sounds like an Ares V or Ares V-Lite (which is just the Ares IV) by any other name.

There was a third type proposed that's a non-SD-type HLV but the report said Congress is interested in an SD-HLV. I wouldn't completely write it off, however. These rocket designs and concepts have a way of resurrecting years later after being shelved.

and they will all suffer the same basic issues when it comes to turning them into working rockets; 30 year old technology

While much of the technology is old it's reliable. The only rocket proposal planning on using new technology I can think of is the Skylon system. Known reliability can be a strong point which is a point driven home by the ULA ACES schematics.

a lack of any clear mission, a lack of funding for mission hardware even if such a plan existed, and NASA's chronic problems with delivering on time and on budget.

If you're planning on going to the Moon they have a mission. If you plan on visiting an asteroid by 2025 they still have a mission although a less planned-out one as such a mission is much hazier right now than lunar sorties or even a lunar base plan. I can't think of any EELVs or medium-lift launchers that could take humans to an asteroid far beyond the Moon. If you plan on just using them for Mars then they will have nothing to do for some time.

The lack of funding and the chronic problems with design-by-commission instead of by-engineer are the biggest elephants in the room. But IMHO the same goes with any rocket. SD HLV, non-SD HLV, EELV or otherwise.

*I have to say though I don't really see how using 2 back-to-back Orions would sustain a human crew to an asteroid and back either.

[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)?

[The Jim]

If one goes with an EELV launcher the only type I can think of suitable for a 6-person Orion would be an HLV version of the Atlas V. Unfortunately I haven't heard any organized plans from ULA pitch the idea. The ACES plan uses just the regular Atlas V 500-series and/or the Delta IV Heavy which has a lifting capacity only the same as or possibly slightly less than the current Ares I specs.

.

Incorrect, with the RS-68A, Delta IV will have more capacity than Atlas V heavy. NASA is doing Delta IV studies as we speak

[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.

[Parallax M86]

Incorrect, with the RS-68A, Delta IV will have more capacity than Atlas V heavy. NASA is doing Delta IV studies as we speak

Are there any plans to put one or more on the Delta IV and would it be cheaper than just expanding the Atlas V-500 series into the already-designed HLV model?

[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.