SENTINEL EXCLUSIVE
NASA studies Ares rocket alternatives
5 Ares options under review, including 1 based on Saturn V
 Ares rocket options (SHINIKO R. FLOYD, ORLANDO SENTINEL / November 13, 2009) |
Poll: What would you do with the space program?
A presidential panel reviewed the human-spaceflight program, questioning when, how and whether the U.S. will return to the moon.
- See more photos »
- See more stories »
- See more topics »
E-mail
Print
CAPE CANAVERAL — In the wake of criticism that NASA's next-generation Constellation Program rockets are behind schedule and over budget, teams of agency engineers are hastily reviewing alternative designs for a new heavy-lift rocket capable of exploring the solar system affordably and relatively quickly.
Among the options they are looking at: a rocket made of the space shuttle's external fuel tank, engines and solid-rocket boosters that has been championed by freelance engineers and hobbyists, and a successor to the Saturn V that once carried astronauts to the moon.
The study, ordered last month by NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden as a "top priority," is supposed to be finished by Thanksgiving so Bolden can present it to President Barack Obama to help him chart a new course for America's space policy.
Bolden told managers at Marshall Space Flight Center inHuntsville, Ala., and Kennedy Space Center to set up a "special team" to evaluate alternatives to the Constellation Program's rockets — the Ares I that's supposed to ferry crew to low Earth orbit, and the Ares V cargo lifter that can carry the extra fuel and equipment astronauts would need to go on to the moon. Those designs have run into technical and budget problems and the first launch of Ares I — scheduled for 2015 — could be delayed until 2017.
That was among the reasons a White House blue-ribbon panel suggested last month that NASA scrap Ares I and its goal of returning to the moon by 2020 in favor of a single rocket design capable of exploring the solar system. The panel, chaired by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, also said NASA needed another $3 billion a year to sustain a human-spaceflight program.
"There is a lot of viewgraph engineering going on," said Jeff Hanley, NASA's Constellation manager who is overseeing the study. "The study is looking at the efficacy of different configurations of heavy-lift vehicles … so that agency leadership can understand the benefits and the downsides of any particular configuration."
The study team is focused on designs that can be developed quickly and cheaply, using existing engines and motors. The team is trying to figure out how much each would cost to launch and operate — and whether it could be upgraded later to a more-powerful version if funding becomes available.
Still, it remains unclear whether any of the designs will be seriously considered by the Obama administration — or whether there will be enough money to build any of them during the next decade.
According to documents obtained by the Orlando Sentinel, there are five options:
•A "side mount" heavy-lift rocket that uses the same engines, boosters and fuel tanks as the shuttle but replaces the orbiter with a carrier. It's considered the cheapest and fastest alternative but cannot be upgraded. There are also safety issues because the capsule is mounted on the side of the fuel tank instead of on top of it.
•A shuttle-derived "In-Line" rocket advocated by the so-called "Direct" group of free-lance engineers and hobbyists. It's based on an old NASA design that uses the shuttle's hardware but puts engines underneath the tank and the capsule on top.
•Two versions of the Ares V "Lite," smaller versions of the Ares V cargo rocket and meant to carry both crew and cargo. The difference between the two versions is the number of engines and the size of the first stage. Both make use of NASA's work during the past four years but would require big changes to assembly and launchpad infrastructure at KSC.
•An all-liquid-fuel heavy-lift rocket described as a modern version of the Saturn V that carried the Apollo astronauts. It's a powerful new design using Russian-made engines and kerosene as the main fuel for the first stage. Considered the cheapest alternative to operate, it cuts costs by doing away with solid-rocket boosters. KSC was originally designed to handle liquid-fuel rockets.
NASA critics say the study is proof of the end of Ares I. But agency officials say that conclusion is premature: At the same time the study is going on, they are also drawing up new plans for Ares I.
Hanley has commissioned another study to look at the possibility of adding more Ares I test flights from KSC starting in 2012. NASA last month successfully launched a prototype called the Ares I-X.
The aim of additional tests would be to gain more confidence in the Ares I rocket and Orion capsule and preserve some jobs at KSC until Ares was ready to launch sometime in 2015, Hanley said. The launch facility is expected to lose at least 7,000 jobs when the space shuttle is retired in either 2010 or 2011.
"It could be one test flight, or it could be multiple test flights." Hanley said. "We'll sit down and see what it costs, and then we will see what monies are available to realize it."
Robert Block can be reached at rblock@orlandosentinel.com or 321-639-0522.
Among the options they are looking at: a rocket made of the space shuttle's external fuel tank, engines and solid-rocket boosters that has been championed by freelance engineers and hobbyists, and a successor to the Saturn V that once carried astronauts to the moon.
The study, ordered last month by NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden as a "top priority," is supposed to be finished by Thanksgiving so Bolden can present it to President Barack Obama to help him chart a new course for America's space policy.
Bolden told managers at Marshall Space Flight Center inHuntsville, Ala., and Kennedy Space Center to set up a "special team" to evaluate alternatives to the Constellation Program's rockets — the Ares I that's supposed to ferry crew to low Earth orbit, and the Ares V cargo lifter that can carry the extra fuel and equipment astronauts would need to go on to the moon. Those designs have run into technical and budget problems and the first launch of Ares I — scheduled for 2015 — could be delayed until 2017.
That was among the reasons a White House blue-ribbon panel suggested last month that NASA scrap Ares I and its goal of returning to the moon by 2020 in favor of a single rocket design capable of exploring the solar system. The panel, chaired by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, also said NASA needed another $3 billion a year to sustain a human-spaceflight program.
"There is a lot of viewgraph engineering going on," said Jeff Hanley, NASA's Constellation manager who is overseeing the study. "The study is looking at the efficacy of different configurations of heavy-lift vehicles … so that agency leadership can understand the benefits and the downsides of any particular configuration."
The study team is focused on designs that can be developed quickly and cheaply, using existing engines and motors. The team is trying to figure out how much each would cost to launch and operate — and whether it could be upgraded later to a more-powerful version if funding becomes available.
Still, it remains unclear whether any of the designs will be seriously considered by the Obama administration — or whether there will be enough money to build any of them during the next decade.
According to documents obtained by the Orlando Sentinel, there are five options:
•A "side mount" heavy-lift rocket that uses the same engines, boosters and fuel tanks as the shuttle but replaces the orbiter with a carrier. It's considered the cheapest and fastest alternative but cannot be upgraded. There are also safety issues because the capsule is mounted on the side of the fuel tank instead of on top of it.
•A shuttle-derived "In-Line" rocket advocated by the so-called "Direct" group of free-lance engineers and hobbyists. It's based on an old NASA design that uses the shuttle's hardware but puts engines underneath the tank and the capsule on top.
•Two versions of the Ares V "Lite," smaller versions of the Ares V cargo rocket and meant to carry both crew and cargo. The difference between the two versions is the number of engines and the size of the first stage. Both make use of NASA's work during the past four years but would require big changes to assembly and launchpad infrastructure at KSC.
•An all-liquid-fuel heavy-lift rocket described as a modern version of the Saturn V that carried the Apollo astronauts. It's a powerful new design using Russian-made engines and kerosene as the main fuel for the first stage. Considered the cheapest alternative to operate, it cuts costs by doing away with solid-rocket boosters. KSC was originally designed to handle liquid-fuel rockets.
NASA critics say the study is proof of the end of Ares I. But agency officials say that conclusion is premature: At the same time the study is going on, they are also drawing up new plans for Ares I.
Hanley has commissioned another study to look at the possibility of adding more Ares I test flights from KSC starting in 2012. NASA last month successfully launched a prototype called the Ares I-X.
The aim of additional tests would be to gain more confidence in the Ares I rocket and Orion capsule and preserve some jobs at KSC until Ares was ready to launch sometime in 2015, Hanley said. The launch facility is expected to lose at least 7,000 jobs when the space shuttle is retired in either 2010 or 2011.
"It could be one test flight, or it could be multiple test flights." Hanley said. "We'll sit down and see what it costs, and then we will see what monies are available to realize it."
Robert Block can be reached at rblock@orlandosentinel.com or 321-639-0522.
Copyright © 2009, Orlando Sentinel
No comments:
Post a Comment