Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Report: EELVs Could Safely Launch Orion

Senior NASA managers are reviewing an independent analysis of whether United Launch Alliance's heavy-lift rockets could be viable alternatives to the agency's Ares I launcher, which is being designed to send astronauts into space after the shuttle is retired.

According to a report by NASAspacelight.com, the study indicates that the Delta IV and Atlas V are safer options than NASA has previously stated.

However, a NASA spokesman said today that the study's findings would not shift the agency's focus away from Ares to the boosters developed under the Air Force's Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, or EELV, program.

"It just doesn't really make sense to change course right now," said Grey Hautaluoma, a spokesman for the Constellation program in Washington, D.C. "Any change at this point would only cost you more money and time, and everybody wants to avoid extending the gap."

That's the projected gap of roughly five years between the last space shuttle flight next year and the first flight of the Ares I carrying a crew in the Orion spacecraft, which is planned by early 2015.

NASA plans to launch astronauts on Russian Soyuz spacecraft during the gap, which threatens several thousand jobs at Kennedy Space Center.

Hautaluoma said NASA asked the California-based Aerospace Corp. to study the issue last December to provide the newly elected Obama administration with an independent analysis of the two systems.

Mike Griffin, NASA's administrator at the time, has been strongly opposed to use of heavy-lift versions of the Delta IV or Atlas V rockets promoted by ULA, the joint venture between Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. formed in 2006.

He has said that they would be twice as risky as the Ares I, whose first stage is based on the shuttle's solid rocket boosters; that some reported Ares design problems needing fixes are normal during development of a new vehicle; and that a change in course would further delay human flights.

He has also said that while EELVs could send crews to the International Space Station in low Earth orbit, they would require significant modification for lunar missions.

According to NASAspaceflight.com, the Aerospace Corp. analysis dismisses some safety concerns with the EELVs, but says the costs to human-rate them would be much higher than ULA has estimated.

Hautaluoma said the study likely would not be released because of the proprietary and "sensitive but unclassified" information it contains. He would not confirm the study's reported findings, saying they were still being evaluated.

"More data is always good," he said. "We're still moving forward with Ares. We thoroughly vetted it several years ago and decided it was the right choice."

A detailed NASA budget is expected to be released along with the federal budget in early May, and the document could further clarify timelines for the development of Ares I, the heavy-lift Ares V rocket and Altair lunar lander.

President Obama's nominee to run NASA could be announced before then.

IMAGE NOTE: Click to enlarge the concept image above showing the Ares I crew launch vehicle on a launch pad at NASA's Kennedy Space Center. Credit: NASA/MSFC.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Would that be the Delta IV (medium) or the Delta IV (Heavy)? As you know, the Delta IV Heavy has only flown a few missions... has it been man-rated?

If it can handle the Ares I weight, it would seem that a liquid-fueled booster would be inherently safer than an SRB. Also, the Delta IV would seem to have more flexability than the SRB big stick.

Also, using the Delta IV (or Atlas) would allow for the development of a proper re-usable spacecraft, not just an apollo on steroids.

NASA could also save money by using existing systems, rather than having to build new ones from scratch.

What do you think?

Rick Steele
Sarasota, Florida

Andrew said...

It would be the Delta IV Heavy.

None of the EELV's have been man-rated. But they could be, with seemingly few modifications.

NASA has already modified the man rating standards so that Ares I will fit them.

Using a liquid first stage would most likely be safer, and would reduce the huge Thrust Oscillation issues present with the solid first stage.

It seems like a no-brainer that EELV's should be used instead of Ares I. It would save money and still potentially shorten (not lengthen, as NASA claims) the gap. With that, there's more of a chance that Ares V would be a reality.

Andrew

Jeff M said...

"He has also said that while EELVs could send crews to the International Space Station in low Earth orbit, they would require significant modification for lunar missions."

Doesn't the Ares I only go to LEO and the space station as well? Or is the assumption that both Ares have to be scrapped if the little one goes?

Why is it that whenever issues with the Ares come up, NASA's answer is "it's too early to tell if it won't work."

But when someone asks if they should switch, NASA's reply is "we are too far along to change."

So which is it? Is it too early or too late?

libs0n said...

Rick,

They're talking about the Delta 4 Heavy, and possibly the Heavy variant of the Atlas V that still has a modest amount of work to do to bring online. Both those vehicles can lift the mass of a full lunar Orion with plenty of room to spare. Man rating entails placing a sensor system on the launch vehicle to determine when faults arise so as to trigger the abort system on the Orion capsule in an emergency. Installing a launch vehicle health monitoring system would be part of the work still necessary prior to putting Orion on an EELV, but is not an egregious cost or time delay. The EELV vehicles in question already meet the same vehicle safety standards NASA applies to the Ares 1, so they do not need to be extensively redesigned as was once believed.

What NASA does with the money and time they'd save by using existing and reliable launch vehicles for the Orion would possibly be the same greater plan they have now, but I agree that it would allow them to focus on the remaining work necessary to go to the moon, and would certainly give them the chance to reconsider other avenues before doing so.

Anonymous said...

> Delta IV Heavy has only flown a few missions... has it been man-rated?

In comparison, Ares I not only did not yet fly, it does not even exist, but already costs us more than Delta IV R&D. Ares I is planned to fly to ISS in 2016 (!!!)

We can start man-rating Delta IV today. This needs less than 3 years and less than $1 billion. First flight to ISS in 2012, how about that?

libs0n said...

"It just doesn't really make sense to change course right now," said Grey Hautaluoma, a spokesman for the Constellation program in Washington, D.C. "Any change at this point would only cost you more money and time, and everybody wants to avoid extending the gap."

Mr. Hautaluoma is incorrect, as the Ares 1 launch vehicle NASA is developing to perform the same role that these EELVs could is still being developed, a process that will not finish for more than half a decade. The Ares 1 is nowhere near as far along in its development as the Atlas 5 Heavy, let alone the already fielded and successfully flown Delta 4 Heavy. The EELVs are largely ready and capable and would only require modest work to do the job of carrying Orion. The Aerospace corp study also determined that they would come online years sooner than the Ares 1. The money saved from avoiding the expensive development of a entirely new and risky booster when there are better demonstrated alternatives available could be applied to the building of the remaining components necessary to go the moon, thereby speeding up the realization of NASA's spaceflight goals. On the contrary, going with one of these reliable and safe launch vehicles would save time and money, shortening considerably the multi-year gap America is without a manned launch system.

Anonymous said...

sorry for the "experts" that has made that "study" but I've already said/suggested that about THREE YEARS AGO: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/010arianecev.html

Mike Majeski said...

I find it ironic that this study was first conducted to discredit EELVs and to finally put an end to the EELV argument. Talk about your plan backfiring! The study proves that EELVs are the better solution and NASA must scramble together a quick reason for why Ares is still better.

"Blackzones" were the first myth that NASA used to discredit EELVs. That was proven wrong within days and we no longer hear of this argument. No it is man rating...how long until ULA proves that this is not an issue either.

Anonymous said...

I suspect NASA will demand some people at Aerospace Corp be fired
for having the effrontery to publish this report.

I feel sorry for the authors, this is no time to be unemployed.

Anonymous said...

Any of you heard of Jupiter? That would be the ideal, easy to implement, low cost, quickest, and most capable solution.