A temporary spending measure signed by President Obama on December 22 means NASA and other government agencies will stay at 2010 funding levels until March 4, 2011. This means, according to Jeff Foust at Space Politics, that among other items, the prohibition in the FY10 appropriations bill that prevents NASA from terminating any Constellation programs remains in effect, despite the human spaceflight plan enacted in the NASA authorization act signed into law in October.
The temporary measure, H.R. 3082, known as a continuing resolution, was passed by the House of Representatives on Dec. 21. With its signing by the president, NASA will continue to operate at spending rates proportional to the $18.72 billion appropriated for all of 2010, according to Space News.
An earlier version of the bill would have funded the federal government for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 and would have increased NASA spending by $186 million over 2010 levels and provided authority to cancel Constellation contracts and initiate new programs in the current fiscal year, but the measure stalled in the Senate under Republican opposition to earmarks contained in the $1.1 trillion funding package.
The continuing resolution, however, doesn’t not specify what money at NASA should be used for specific items, and so the additional shuttle flight that was deemed a certainty in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 that Obama signed into law Oct. 11, will likely still happen, but it’s not a sure thing.
NASA spokesman Michael Cabbage said the agency was still reviewing H.R. 3082, but “The continuing resolution by itself does not endanger the extra shuttle mission, because on an annualized basis the continuing resolution provides enough funding to fly the mission,” Cabbage was quoted in Space News.
However, Foust suggested that “there remains the possibility that a new, more fiscally conservative Congress might seek to cut funding below the 2010 levels, either overall or for specific programs, when it convenes in January.”
So while NASA can’t cancel its Constellation contracts, the lack of specificity for NASA programs in H.R. 3082 gives the agency authority to continue developing a the Orion crew vehicle for deep space missions as called for in the authorization act. And because Congress provided $100 million for development of a heavy-lift rocket in the 2010 appropriation, NASA could begin work on that or a similar vehicle as directed in the authorization measure – all the while still paying for Constellation.
And the continuing resolution could pose potential problems for NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, said Space News.
Under Obama’s 2011 budget proposal, NASA would have received $500 million for the effort to help commercial companies develop rockets and cargo ships capable of resupplying the space station. But because the program is new, and was not funded in the 2010 appropriation, NASA could be left to await new appropriations legislation before it can get started.
Many other NASA programs face uncertainty in their budgets, as well.
Orbital Sciences is one of many space companies that are vying to produce a 'space taxi.' Image Credit: Orbital Sciences Corporation
[/caption]
Once, the field had only had few entries, but now there are several companies vying to send American astronauts into orbit. With NASA’s Commercial Crew Development program, or CCDev 2, and the encouragement of commercial space firms to produce their own vehicles, the number of potential ‘space-taxis’ has swelled, with virtually every established and up-and-coming aerospace company either producing – or proposing one.
SpaceX has successfully demonstrated the capabilities of its Dragon spacecraft. Image Credit: SpaceX
One of the first firms to unveil a potential means of transportation to the International Space Station (ISS) was Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX). SpaceX launched the first of its Dragon spacecraft on Dec. 8, and shortly thereafter became the first private company to safely recover a spacecraft after it returned from orbit.
Boeing was once of the first companies to unveil its proposal. Image Credit: Boeing
Not to be out done by the ‘new kid on the block’ Boeing unveiled its version of a space taxi this past September. Boeing’s Crew Space Transportation-100 (CST-100) spacecraft which it described could be used for missions to the space station or other ‘LEO platforms.’ One potentially exciting prospect about this endeavor is that any excess seating capacity will be available for purchase through Space Adventures.
Orbital Sciences has proposed using a space plane to ferry astronauts to orbit: Image Credit: Orbital
A step away from what most of these companies are doing, Orbital Sciences has proposed producing a ‘mini-shuttle’ to ferry passengers to and from orbit. Most aerospace companies that have submitted designs and ideas have stepped away from the space plane concept as it is now viewed as too complicated and expensive. However, the U.S. Air Force recently successfully demonstrated the viability of its unmanned X-37B space plane. It was perhaps with this in mind that emboldened Orbital to go a step further and produce a man-rated mini space plane. Orbital images show their spacecraft proposal being lifted to orbit atop a Delta IV Heavy.
Just this month Virgin Galactic also announced its plans to produce a space plane (the company uses a space plane in its sub-orbital commercial efforts – this new space plane appears to be an extension of that).
Sierra Nevada also has proposed using a space plane as an orbital transport vehicle. Image Credit: Sierra Nevada Space
Lastly Sierra Nevada Corp also has thrown its name into the ring proposing a winged spacecraft. Their ‘Dream Chaser’ spacecraft is similar to Orbital’s proposal, a winged spacecraft that would be launched to orbit atop an expendable launch vehicle.
These companies are all vying for the $200 million that NASA has placed into a program to promote ease of access to orbit. While the Orion spacecraft, produced by Lockheed Martin, is part of a NASA program – these other organizations are hoping that by demonstrating the viability of their technology – that they can also secure a strong position in the emerging commercial space market.
The White House is looking into ways to reduce the number of astronauts employed by the U.S. Image Credit: NASA
[/caption]
CAPE CANAVERAL – When we think of NASA, the first thing that most Americans picture is the men and women of the astronaut corps. It turns out that the White House has been thinking about them as well – as maybe something that might need to be cut down. The Obama administration has requested a 10-month long study be held to determine the appropriate ‘size’ of NASA’s astronaut corps.
There are only two (and a potential third) shuttle flights remaining on the current manifest.
Right now, NASA has 64 astronauts, which some might consider a bit much if very few will be flying to space. However, if three NASA astronauts are part of each 6-member, 6-month Expedition on the International Space Station from 2011-2017 (the projected time period when NASA will be unable to launch their own astronauts) that still is 36 astronauts with a mission to space.
But the proposal to cut NASA’s astronaut corps comes on the heels of numerous successive cuts that the space agency has endured over the past year. Many view the loss of the corps as one more blow to both spaceflight experience as well as national prestige.
The White House hopes that commercial space companies such as SpaceX, which is slated to launch the second of its Falcon 9 rockets sometime this week, will emerge to fill the void created by NASA’s absence. However, to date, none of these firms have launched an astronaut into orbit. During the interim, and until NASA can build its own heavy lift vehicle, the US space agency is relying on — and paying — the Russians to bring US astronauts to the ISS via the Soyuz.
There has never been more than 150 astronauts at any given time (the most ever was 149 back in 2000). Although most Americans assume that NASA has a massive budget, for what the agency does and provides, it is incredibly small, about one-seventh of a penny out of every tax dollar helps to pay for the ISS, the shuttle program, the probes and rovers to the planets and the astronaut’s salaries. The agency’s budget is currently $18.7 billion a year. The 47 civilian astronauts earn between $65,000 and $100,000 annually, with the remaining military astronauts being paid through the Department of Defense (DoD) which NASA reimburses.
The National Academies is the organization that will conduct the review of the astronaut corps and they are leaving no stone unturned, even the T-38 ‘Talon’ jets that the astronauts fly in, are coming under scrutiny. These jets are not state-of-the-art fighters, but rather training aircraft that date back to the beginning of the space age. These planes, equipment and facilities used to train astronauts and the current number of astronauts will all be reviewed.
“I still don’t know how many folks are in the queue and were not selected for shuttle, ” said two-time shuttle astronaut Robert Springer. “If you are in the program and there is little or no chance to fly in the next 4-8 years that’s too bad, but it’s not the first time this has happened, and if you like the environment, working with some of the greatest people in the business, it can lead to challenging working on the next great enterprise.”
But some have a different idea of how NASA could cut costs.
“You know, if Obama really wanted to cut waste at NASA – he’d start with headquarters,” said a long-time NASA employee who requested to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. “That place is stocked with GS-15s – who really don’t do much of anything!” He said referring to the government pay grade of many of the high-level officials that work at NASA’s headquarters in Washington D.C.
If everything goes according to their plan - Lockheed Martin would have their Orion spacecraft launch on a Delta IV Heavy rocket. Image Credit: NASA
[/caption]
After the announcement of the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) one of the proposals to reduce the space flight ‘gap’ between the shuttle program and the Constellation Program was to attach the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to a Delta IV Heavy rocket. With all the political wrangling this simple solution appeared lost – or so it was thought. The idea of man-rating a Delta IV heavy never seemed to quite fade away and now a plan is under way to launch the Orion spacecraft on top of one of these massive launch vehicles – within the next three years.
More importantly by launching these test flights, NASA will be able to review up to three-quarters of the technical challenges involved with a flight to either the moon or to an asteroid – without risking a crew. Some of the elements that would be checked out on this unmanned test flight would be:
• Spacecraft stabilization and control.
• Parachutes used for reentry and other systems used to recover the spacecraft.
• Micrometeoroid shielding along with other systems used to protect the vehicle.
The manufacturer of the Orion spacecraft, Lockheed Martin, plans to have the first flight take place as soon as 2013. This test flight would launch from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station’s Space Launch Complex 37. If all goes well? Astronauts could be riding the Delta IV heavy to destinations such as the moon or an asteroid by 2015. For now though these plans are still in their infancy.
If all does go according to how Lockheed Martin human spaceflight engineers plan – the first mission to an asteroid could beat the 2025 date that President Obama set during his April visit to Kennedy Space Center – by ten years.
Each successive flight after the first unmanned mission would shake out the technology more and more until crews fly into orbit. The first unmanned flight, as envisioned by Lockheed Martin, would emulate many of the elements of a mission to either an asteroid or to the moon.
For long-time followers of the space program, witnessing a man-rated launch of a Delta IV heavy will very much be a blast from the past. In the early days of the space program astronauts rode Atlas and Titan rockets into orbit (these rockets were actually man-rated Cold-War missiles). Attached atop the Delta IV would be the Orion capsule and on top of that would be a Launch Abort System (LAS). This last component is a small mini-rocket that would pull the capsule up and away from the Delta if there is an emergency.
Once the flight is completed, the Orion will splashdown in the same general area as Space Exploration Technology’s (SpaceX’s) Dragon Spacecraft – the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California.
The Orion Spacecraft has proved itself to be a survivor. President Obama initially promised to support NASA’s lunar ambitions on the campaign trail – a promise he went back on once elected. He then attempted to cancel all elements of the Constellation Program of which Orion was a key part. This proposal landed with a resounding thud. He then attempted to gain support for his space plan by resurrecting Orion as a stripped down lifeboat for the International Space Station (ISS) – this too met with little support. Eventually, after much Congressional wrangling, Orion emerged as the one element of Constellation – which Obama could not kill.
Congress has put some support behind his plan to have commercial space firms provide transportation to low-Earth-orbit (LEO). However, these firms have no experience whatsoever launching men and material to orbit – and Congress wanted to have a backup plan – that meant Orion. As the launch vehicle that would have hefted Orion to orbit was effectively dead another rocket was required – the best candidate was the Delta IV heavy.
Within three years a Delta IV Heavy like this one could launch the first Orion capsule. Photo Credit: Universe Today/Alan Walters - awaltersphoto.com
The Orion spacecraft is depicted here circling Earth's nearest celestial neighbor, the moon. Image Credit: NASA
[/caption]
Lockheed Martin has been working overtime to get the Orion spacecraft ready for its first mission, which officials say could be as early as 2013, depending on Congress’ final decision for NASA’s future and budget. Tools and procedures are being checked out to see that they work as advertised for both the spacecraft as well as assembly procedures and manufacturing for building future capsules.
The Orion spacecraft will be assembled and integrated on site in the Operations & Checkout (O & C) building at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida. By doing this, both time and money can be saved as it will cut down on transportation costs and logistical issues.
“The unique benefit of this complete on-site operation is that we will build the spacecraft and then move it directly onto the launch vehicle at KSC, which saves the government transportation costs associated with tests and checkout prior to launch,” said Lockheed Martin Orion Deputy Program Manager for production operations Richard Harris. “This capability also facilitates the KSC workforce transition efforts by providing new job opportunities for those employees completing their shuttle program assignments.”
The current plan calls for Orion to serve to transport astronauts to the International Space Station and perhaps an eventual mission beyond low-Earth-orbit (LEO), but Orion’s future rests with Congress’ upcoming decision on NASA’s future budget. The House Science and Technology Committee announced Thursday a compromise between the House and Senate versions of NASA’s budget, but it is unclear when a final vote may take place.
In the meantime, the O & C building has been transformed in the past couple years into what is being called “the space factory of the future.” This was accomplished by the combined effort of both Lockheed Martin as well as Space Florida, the state’s aerospace development organization. The work was done to create a state-of-the-art facility for spacecraft production and innovation.
NASA's Operations and Checkout (O&C) Building has recently been refurbished to accomocate the Orion spacecraft. Photo Credit: NASA
Changes made to the O&C include 90,000 square feet of air-bearing floor space, paperless work stations, a portable clean room system, and specialized lifting/lowering/ support tools designed by United Space Alliance (USA). Specially designed air-bearing pallets will allow a small crew to maneuver hardware across the floor. The building renovation also incorporates energy-saving electrical systems which will help to further lower costs.
Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for the Orion Project and heads the team that includes numerous subcontractors and small businesses working at facilities in 28 states. Additionally, the program works with more than 500 small businesses across the U.S. to provide the needed supplies that make the Orion Project a reality.
Apollo astronaut Jim Lovell at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library in Springfield, IL. Credit: Nancy Atkinson
[/caption]
Springfield, Illinois is a quiet, historic town that clings fervently to its association with Abraham Lincoln. If you want Civil War era history and desire to know anything about Lincoln, you can find it in Springfield, especially at the outstanding new Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Musuem.
So, it’s not often that an astronaut shows up, especially a former astronaut with his own unique kind of history such as Apollo 13’s Jim Lovell. But Lovell is in town this week, as he was awarded the Lincoln Leadership Prize, an honor given by the museum’s foundation to “exceptional men and women for a lifetime of service in the Lincoln tradition.” Still a commanding figure at age 82, Lovell chatted eloquently and easily with members of the press yesterday, and since I live in Springfield and am a member of the press, you can bet I was there. It was an honor to be able to talk with him.
Lovell toured the museum earlier in the day, and said, “It is a magnificent museum and library dedicated to one of our greatest presidents, and every American should have the chance to come here in order to get a good idea of what our country stands for and what the people in the past, like Abraham Lincoln, have done to make it a great country.”
Lovell said he was very honored and humbled to be the recipient of the Lincoln Prize and said what he has learned from Lincoln over the years is commitment. “Commitment is necessary if you are going to do anything great, like Lincoln, who committed himself to stand fast,” he said. “I enjoy the aspects of what the Lincoln Prize recognizes, and to be a recipient, well, it has a very special place in my heart.”
Of course, readers of Universe Today are familiar with Lovell’s history: a test pilot in the Navy who applied to become one of the original seven Mercury astronauts (“back when boosters were blowing up every other day at Cape Canaveral,” Lovell said). He didn’t make initial selection, but two years later when NASA needed more astronauts, Lovell was chosen. He flew two missions for Gemini, then Apollo 8 and Apollo 13.
Lovell called Apollo 8 the pinnacle of his career. “I am really proud to be one of three people that flew and circled the Moon on Christmas Eve in 1968,” he said, “and we were able to relay back — not to just the people of the United States, but the whole world — something positive after a rather dismal year.”
At the museum Lovell found out that the person who portrayed him in the movie “Apollo 13” – Tom Hanks – is a distance relative of Abraham Lincoln, “so I guess he had a bit of Lincoln in him too, and he was a great character to work with.”
Nancy Atkinson with Jim Lovell.
Following is part of the conversation with Lovell:
On the topic of commitment, do you think the United States is committed to human spaceflight?
Lovell: My personal opinion is that I believe the US has a very strong committment to continue our space exploration. Unfortunately, our present administration doesn’t believe that. The proposed NASA budget for 2011 eliminates the forward efforts of manned spaceflight. It goes for general research and other things. I don’t think they actually remember that NASA was formed to explore space. Consequently there is a possibility that we might be number three or four in space exploration in the future. As you know there about 2 or 3 shuttle flights left. After that the US has no access to the International Space Station, which all our taxpayers have put a lot of money into. If this plan goes forward, the only access in the future will be the Russians and they have indicated that the cost per astronaut per flight is about 60 million dollars, which is a pretty high ticket price to get there.
I think Congress sees the danger of the present proposal of NASA’s 2011 budget and based on that they are now in session both in the House and Senate to try and modify the President’s proposal to continue in some aspect manned space efforts to design vehicles to get up to the International Space Station, sometime in the near future. Hopefully Congress will get together and come up with a compromise. I personally feel the President has so many things weighing on his mind right now that he will go along with Congress’ proposal and it will be better than the initial budget that he proposed to the American people some months ago.
Universe Today: Do you have confidence in the commercial space companies that could bring people to space?
That’s a good question, because part of the new proposal is putting efforts and money into developing commercial spaceflight. Now, you have to look at what the definition of commercial is. In my mind, commercial is when an entrepreneur sees an enterprise to develop a launch system and spacecraft to get into space. He gets his own resources, does the development to build and test his system, makes it man- rated and then proposes his vehicle and system to NASA, or to the FAA if he wants to use it for tourism to space. This is what I consider commercial.
Now, a government program is where the government puts all the money into it and develops and builds it. Within the government, we have the free enterprise system, the private sector where we have contractors to do that. Boeing, Lockheed, General Dyamics, and so on. These people have 40 or 50 years in the development of space artifacts, launch systems, spacecraft. To put government money into a new system for unproven vehicles is today, a waste of money.
Jim Lovell. Credit: Nancy Atkinson
Boeing is now thinking of going into commercial work. They have the expertise to do that. But not some of the newer people like SpaceX, although they did build a nice booster that made one flight. But if they could build it on their own and make it man-rated and have a suitable launch to system to go the ISS, more power to them. I’m sure NASA would contract with them. But we have limited amount of money to spend for space activities, and it seems to me the best place to put it would be with the people who have the knowledge and expertise and the history of what it takes to build a launch system.
There are a few companies that are looking at suborbital flights, such as Richard Branson’s company (Virgin Galactic) who wants to expand what Burt Rutan has done to give people 5 or 6 minutes of weightlessness. Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com is another (Blue Origin). They are really entrepreneurs. If they can build their vehicles and systems and they think there is a market for tourism, then that is the way to go.
I’m all for commercialization. A lot of times people compare this to the work that the NACA did to help the airline industry – to develop wing designs and things like that—but the aviation industry in the early days saw a good market, because they knew either commercial flights or military vehicles would provide a market, so there was an opening there.
If you look at commercial space companies, as far as orbital, you have to ask what can people do there? There’s only one place to go in orbit, that’s the ISS. The Russians are already there. The Chinese are talking about building a space station, but there is no other manned market for commercial orbital spaceflight. Now there are a lot of unmanned commercial operations: satellites for the military, GPS, communications, weather – there’s a lot that can happen there and can happen in the future. I think the Boeing vehicles have made over 80 commercial flights putting satellites in orbit.
But low Earth orbit for people – where do you want to go? Unless you have tourists that want to go around the Earth or go to the ISS, there really is not a market, except for the market of the government to put astronauts up in the ISS.
What is the benefit to be gained from manned spaceflight that would outweigh the costs in these tough economic times?
Lovell: That answer is the same as it was back in the days of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo.
One, is the technologies developed. It used to be the only way there was technology development was if there was a war. When NASA came along the technology it developed spilled over in the public sector and you can see what has happened today, especially in the information industry.
The second thing you have to remember is that there was a spur of education. When Russia put up Sputnik, everyone asked how they did it and why we didn’t. And this spilled over into education. I can’t tell you how many people who have told me that when they were young they followed the space program and that affected their choice to go into engineering or science.
Then, there is idea of what we can do as the human race. The world is getting smaller. We can’t do things in space much on our own anymore, and so we have to work together. We now have an International Space Station, 16 countries working together in a program that is not controversial at all. It works. We’re getting to know other countries. We have a common bond.
As of now China is working on their own, but if they accomplish what they want to do, they might join the consortium of the other countries working together.
Now, the idea of manned spaceflight, even though if you pin me to wall, and ask, “OK, we want to go to Mars—why? What will we do there?” Honestly, I can’t tell you. I don’t know.
But I have to tell you one thing. Somebody is going to go to Mars. The technology is here. It is just the time effort and money to make that a possibilty. The original Constellation program that we had carefully devised and developed over years to build a vehicle to get us up to the space station because the shuttle would be retired, and then build the Ares boosters to work our way eventually get us back to the Moon, using that infrastructure to fully explore it – we’ve only touched a small part of the Moon so far – and then after years of developing that to eventually get the architecture and infrastructure. That was the whole plan. It wasn’t a plan to get to Mars in 10 years or 15 years, it was plan to get to one spot, and work your way to the next spot. And there would probably be a consortium of countries working with us. And that was the whole plan that the President shot down. He mentioned something about someday we’d get a big booster. When? You have to have a program to develop the technology. He wants to develop technology and then figure out what kind of program to have. That’s the wrong approach. That’s putting the cart before the horse.
If money was no object and the President said we could go either to the Moon or Mars, what would you recommend?
Lovell: I would tell him to go back to the program we had developed for Constellation. Now, there has been some controversy, even among my own compatriots. Some say we’ve been to the Moon- we’ve done that, so let’s go on to Mars, or let’s go on to an asteroid. That’s all well said and done.
We were extremely fortunate in the 1960’s to develop Apollo and to have the accomplishments we did. I was amazed when I heard President Kennedy announce in 1961 that we were going to go to the Moon by the end of the decade. I said, that’s impossible. So if I say that I don’t know what we’d do if we go to Mars, I might be sadly mistaken and someone might get there before we ever thought it was possible.
But I think you have to do it step by step, to develop it and then go.
The day before the DM-2 test storm clouds loom over ATK's rocket garden. Photo Credit: Jason Rhian
The deserts of Promontory, Utah came alive with fire as NASA and Alliant Techsystems (ATK) tested the Development Motor-2 (DM-2). The five-segment, first-stage of the Ares rocket was activated at 9:27 a.m. MDT on Aug. 31. The still morning air surrendered its silence to the sound of unleashed technological thunder. The surrounding countryside was bathed in the colors of flame as a huge plume of hot exhaust and smoke shot out the back of the solid motor. However, ATK was racking up another successful test – to a system with a future in doubt.
The DM-2 is a test-article for the Ares family of rockets, which as part of the Constellation Program, has been targeted for cancellation. President Obama has worked since the beginning of this year to scrap almost every element of the Constellation Program. These plans to transform the U.S. manned space program have cost him support across the country – and within his own party.
Obama’s new agenda for NASA caused a strong Congressional reaction, with two separate bills drafted countering the White House’s proposal. These bills are attempting to seek a “middle-ground” between the “program of record” (Constellation) and the new Obama plan. Both the House and Senate issued competing (and radically different) bills. As it currently stands, NASA has no clear path forward and is kept in a holding pattern until the future of U.S. manned space flight is determined by lawmakers in Washington D.C. This leaves the fate of the Ares family of rockets up in the air.
[/caption]
Despite concerns about what ATK’s future may hold – company personnel remained optimistic. They cite the fact that in terms of technical expertise and know-how, few companies can compete with the experience that the Maryland-based rocket manufacturer has.
“In terms of harnessing this kind of energy, it’s a very challenging engineering task,” said Charlie Precourt, a four-time shuttle astronaut and ATK’s vice president and general manager of Space Launch Systems. “The skills required to complete these engineering tasks is being addressed by the decision-makers, to ensure that the critical skills and the performance capabilities that we have build up over many years endure into the next generation.”
ATK prepares the Development Motor-2 for its test. Image Credit: ATK
ATK meanwhile continues to work on other components of the Ares and Orion systems. The Launch Abort System (LAS), parachute system for the upper Ares upper stage, and Attitude Control Motor (ACM) are all built by ATK and tested by the firm’s technicians and engineers.
The DM-2 test was conducted to gain data on some 53 designs incorporated in this system. Some of the elements tested include the redesigned rocket nozzle, new insulation used in this design and the motor casing’s liner. When activated the DM-2 produced an estimated 3.6 million pounds of thrust – equaling 22 million horsepower. The motor had 760 instruments incorporated into it these instruments worked to collect vital information regarding the rocket’s performance when it was fired. This makes the test fire of the DM-2 the most heavily-instrumented solid rocket motor test in NASA history.
Senator Orrin Hatch attended the Aug. 31 test firing of ATK's DM-2 rocket. Photo Credit: Jason Rhian
The horizontal ground test firing is what is known as a “cold motor” test. This is accomplished by chilling the DM-2 down to 40 degrees F. This is done to measure how the motor performs at very low temperatures. The test also was held to prove out design specifications of new materials used in the motor joints.
These new elements will eliminate the need for the joint heaters that are currently used. (these heaters were required in the 4-segment version of the motor’s design). It is hoped that with the addition of these new modifications weight will be dramatically reduced, launch operations will be simplified and the overall system will be far less complex.
DM-2 is a combination of Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) segments that have flown on 57 shuttle missions total. These segments are recycled after every mission. Once they have been jettisoned from the space shuttle they are recovered out in the Atlantic Ocean by recovery ships (named Freedom Star and Liberty Star). From there, they are shipped back to ATK’s plant where they are broken down into segments again and refurbished for the next mission.
ATK highlighted that most space-faring nations utilize solid rocket motors for their space flight programs. The U.S., Japan and Europe all incorporate solid rocket into their launch vehicles.
“If you look at the physics of putting something in space, you have to get to this magic speed of 17,500 miles-per-hour,” said Michael Bllomfield, three-time shuttle astronaut who now ATK’s vice president of Johnson Space Center (JSC) Operations. “the most efficient launch profile uses a combination of solids and liquids.”
The day prior to the test ominous storm clouds had encircled ATK’s test site. The rain and lightning that followed seem to underscore the condition in which the solid rocket manufacturer now finds itself. The following day they went about their duties despite the uncertainty that they currently face. With the shuttle program coming to an end and the future use of solid rockets placed in doubt, only time will tell if the company that provided the U.S. space program with its heavy lift capabilities for the past 30 years can weather the storm.
NASA's Desert RATS will conduct field tests at the end of this month.
[/caption]
For some fourteen years now NASA‘s Desert Research and Technology Studies (Desert RATS) team has been testing out the viability of many of NASA’s vehicles, space suits, habitats and robotic systems in extreme environments. Like their durable name-sake, the Desert RATS have proven to be resilient and flexible, adapting to the changing NASA environment. When it was announced that NASA would move away from the Constellation Program and toward other objectives such as asteroids and possibly Mars – the Desert RATS picked up the challenge and modified their regimen to reflect this change.
Testing this year will take place from Aug. 31 until Sept. 15 and will shakedown many new design concepts. The former Electric Lunar Rovers, now dubbed Space Exploration Vehicles will be tested at the site requiring simulated astronauts to live in these vehicles for a week.
No Desert RATS expedition would be incomplete without some incredible robots to assist their human companions. There are the Tri-ATHLETEs (Terrain Hex-Legged Extra-Terrestrial Explorer) – these wheeled, spidery creations have six independent ‘legs’ each with a wheel at the base and can be fitted with different ‘tops” for each mission. Robonaut 2, one of NASA’s new robotic rock-stars, has been converted into a four-wheeled variant dubbed Centaur 2 and will be tested this year. This variation could be a potential mode of transport for NASA.
However, this year’s rotation is all about the “hab.” The Habitat Demonstration Unit (HDU) Project is an inter-agency project consisting of NASA architects, scientists and engineers. These groups are working to develop living quarters, workspaces, and laboratories for future space missions, working under the “build a little – test a little” philosophy. This area will serve as a laboratory, a place for maintenance and a staging area in the event of a medical emergency.
Robonaut-1 is seen here in its Centaur configuration. Photo Credit: NASA/Joe Bibby
“This allows us to have far greater flexibility,” said Tracy Gill, NASA’s Deputy Project Manager for the habitat element of this project. “These habitats are currently in the process of being developed further to make them even more adaptable.”
NASA is working with the National Space Grant Foundation to develop an inflatable “loft” that will be attached to the HDU. This will mean that astronauts won’t have to don a space suit to travel from their living quarters to where they work – they would simply have to go “upstairs.” In an effort to promote science, technology, engineering and math (known as STEM) in college-age students, the X-Hab Academic Innovation Competition is working to sponsor development of these inflatable habitat concepts. The goal is for senior and graduate-level design students to design, manufacture, assemble, and test an inflatable loft that will be integrated on top of an existing NASA built hard shell prototype.
As with any year the Desert RATS test out new concepts, this year promises to display many futuristic ideas that one day may be used in the real world(s). This year is slightly different however, in that the elements being tested are designed to be readily adaptable toward whatever NASA will eventually be called to do. During the Apollo era, astronauts were trained by “the King” – Farouk El-Baz. El-Baz worked with the astronauts so that they would be intimately familiar with the lunar surface, that they had the training and tools to get the job done. These annual event – would make “the King” – proud.
NASA successfully tested the pad abort system developed for the Orion crew vehicle on Thursday morning at the White Sands Missile Range near Las Cruces, New Mexico. The 97-second flight test was the first fully integrated test of the Launch Abort System developed for Orion. “It was a big day for our exploration team,” said Doug Cooke, NASA’s Associate Administrator for Exploration following the test. “It looked flawless from my point of view. This is the first abort system the US has developed since Apollo, but it uses much more advanced technologies. It was a tremendous effort to get to this point, designing such a complex system, and we’ve been working on this for about 4 years. I appreciate the amount of dedication and focus from the team. It was beautiful, a tremendous team effort.” Continue reading “Successful Test for Orion Launch Abort System”
President Barack Obama during his speech at Kennedy Space Center on April 15, 2010. Image credit: Alan Walters (awaltersphoto.com) for Universe Today
[/caption]
Speaking at Kennedy Space Center, President Barack Obama discussed his plans for NASA which includes sending astronauts to a nearby asteroid by 2025 and going to Mars by the mid-2030’s. “Let me start by being extremely clear,” Obama said. “I am 100 per cent committed to the mission of NASA and its future because broadening our capabilities in space will continue to serve us in ways we can hardly imagine.” Obama’s plan, which includes the $6 billion in additional funds for NASA over the next five years that was previously announced and using a scaled-down version of the Orion spacecraft as a rescue vehicle for the International Space Station.
Also, Obama committed funds for research now to build a heavy-lift rocket starting in 2015 — or earlier — to launch astronauts and payloads to missions beyond the Moon.
“By 2025 we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first ever crew missions beyond the Moon into deep space,” Obama said. “So, we’ll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history. By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to earth, and a landing on Mars will follow.” Obama at KSC. Image credit: Alan Walters (awaltersphoto.com) for Universe Today.
Obama said his program of partnering with commercial space companies allows for more missions launched from Kennedy Space Center, an acceleration of advanced technologies that will allow for better space transportation systems and a shortening of the dependence on Russian rockets.
The president made no mention of any extension to the space shuttle program, which was one rumor that floated around before his speech.
Norm Augustine, before the president's speech. Credit: Alan Walters (awaltersphoto.com) for Universe Today
Speaking after the President, Norm Augustine – who headed the Augustine Commission review of NASA’s future, said that the new program is very close to one of the options his panel offered (option 5-B) and this path would be “worthy of a great nation, and be able to transform NASA from transportation to exploration.” Augustine also pointed out that we seem more eager to accept current Russian technology than to encourage future of our own private industry. Buzz Aldrin flew with President Obama to Kennedy Space Center in Air Force One. Image credit: Alan Walters (awaltersphoto.com) for Universe Today
The White House Chief Science Advisor John Holdren said Obama’s plan is a “faster pace to space, with more missions sooner and more affordably.” He said it’s a more visionary approach as it expands commercial capability and allows NASA to devote its resources to exploring deep space.
Obama discussed his space plan at the Operations and Checkout Building at the Kennedy Space Center, the same building used to build the Orion spacecraft. This is the first time in 12 years a sitting U.S. president has visited KSC.
The plan was originally unveiled on Feb 1, 2010, and the proposal to cancel the Constellation program and use commercial companies for trips to LEO was met with harsh criticism from members of Congress and many former astronauts, including a letter from Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan and Jim Lovell who called the plan “devastating” the legacy of US space leadership.
Today, however, before the president’s speech, Elon Musk from SpaceX – whose Falcon 9 spacecraft will launch a test flight perhaps next month – issued a statement that lauded Obama’s plan to end Constellation.
“The President quite reasonably concluded that spending $50 billion to develop a vehicle that would cost 50% more to operate, but carry 50% less payload was perhaps not the best possible use of funds. To quote a member of the Augustine Commission, which was convened by the President to analyze Ares/Orion, ‘If Santa Claus brought us the system tomorrow, fully developed, and the budget didn’t change, our next action would have to be to cancel it,’ because we can’t afford the annual operating costs.”
“Cancellation was therefore simply a matter of time,” Musk continued, “and thankfully we have a President with the political courage to do the right thing sooner rather than later. We can ill afford the expense of an “Apollo on steroids”, as a former NASA Administrator referred to the Ares/Orion program. A lesser President might have waited until after the upcoming election cycle, not caring that billions more dollars would be wasted. It was disappointing to see how many in Congress did not possess this courage.”
By choosing KSC to make his speech Obama hoped to bring home that his program will add more 2,500 jobs compared to plan under previous administration.
“We will modernize KSC, creating jobs as we upgrade launch facilities, and bringing the potential for more jobs as companies come here to compete for launch projects. This is an area prime to lead in this competition.”
Afterwards, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said, “It’s special when a president talks about you but it’s even more special when he comes to visit.”
Readers, what are your thoughts on Obama’s program for NASA, and his speech?
A gallery of images from the President’s speech by Alan Walters, in attendance representing Universe Today.
Space personalities Neil deGrasse Tyson and Jim Bell at Obama's speech at KSC. Image credit: Alan Walters (awaltersphoto.com) for Universe TodayBill Nye, The Science GuyLeland Melvin was one of many astronauts in attendance at KSC. Credit: Alan Walters (awaltersphoto.com) for Universe TodaySenator Bill Nelson (D-Florida) and NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden introduced President Obama. Image Credit: Alan Walters (awaltersphoto.com) for Universe Today
