Fasquadron wrote:
Since the early years of this century, NASA has been struggling to turn Shuttle-derived hardware into a heavy lift vehicle. It hasn't gone well. Underfunding, politically imposed design decisions and a lack of a clear purpose has resulted in a slow-motion disaster which looks bound to deliver a rocket that is obsolete on arrival.
With so much going wrong, it's easy to imagine how things might have gone better. I am curious how much better people can see it going though.
I would have thought the ideal would be a program based around the use of the Atlas V or Delta IV - the Atlas V had
some especially favourable upgrade paths if heavy lift was the goal. The Delta IV upgrade pathways
have their own advantages though. For example, using a US-sourced engine and (
according to this document) the Delta IVs were likely to be less expensive per kg of payload. And even the base Delta IV and Atlas V could have supported a program with a space station and using Orion capsules in orbit.
However, does anyone think there is a way to get a useful outcome out of a shuttle-derived program before 2018? Would following a pathway like DIRECT advocated really have been sufficiently better than the Ares program that Jupiter rockets would be flying useful payloads by the present? Were there other pathways that would produce useful outcomes?
You’ve been to NSF right? ::::grin::::
Though Not James Stockdale has he right question:
I think the most important question that needs to be answered is, "Where is the rocket supposed to go."
You have however identified the ACTUAL important question; What is the politically supported outcome?
To be honest the SLS has always been politically, not mission, not engineering and not goal oriented. Period. Our Utah Congress and Senate critters in fact were quite proud that THEY (after due consultation with “experts in their field” who are never named, that sound familiar actually) had inserted as a requirement “130 tons/tonnes” (ya, they were never clear which btw, not even to NASA) as a payload stipulation in the authorization and funding bill. What grand and glorious payload was planned for this? None. The entire reason that payload was stipulated was because the afore mentioned “experts” told them that was the minimum that would REQUIRE the Solid Rocket Boosters being built in Utah. Again, period.
No other reason. And this was despite the initial Congressionally mandated “requirements” to use “as much Shuttle legacy hardware, contractors, sub-contractors, and operations” as possible.
Think about how that effects what you can plan and do when, in addition to all the above you have those in charge of the funding, (Congress btw not the President, the latter recommends the budget the former approves AND decides how to spend the budget up to and including a line-item veto and rearrangement power that allows them to do things like ‘defund’ say long-term life-support research and transfer the funding to build a multi-lingual visitors center which is completed but never opened… You might imagine that’s a real example) who have made it very clear they will not and do not support BLEO operations or planning. Oh they talk of the Moon as long as someone, (the President) is talking Mars but the second the President talks about the Moon then they fall back to supporting LEO operations and so on.
Similarly your question:
I wonder if there is any way for NASA to abandon the "10 healthy centers" mantra and centralize its operations (or at least, centralize the operations of the Constellation program) on fewer centers.
As you point out NASA in fact is struggling to maintain what it has because those “10 healthy centers” along with the various contractors and support groups are the only thing Congress actually cares about. If you recall a couple of years ago there was a bit of stir about funding a competitive study and contracts for replacing the SRB’s with LRB’s? That was because Alabama and Florida Congress-critters thought that Utah’s senior Congressman might either not run or not be re-elected. If that happened then ATK’s biggest proponent would be unable to tilt the scales and both states thought that LRB’s might be built there.
Congress has no specific requirement for SLS to fly, arguably they don’t even need it to be built but as recent events show they have to keep in mind the possibility that someone will eventually want to know, since we’ve spent so much money, when such an event might take place.
Now with all that as a background let me also point out that since Congress DOES actually care about LEO/GEO launches, (mostly Department of Defense of course) and nothing NASA is going to build and operate, (remember “130 tons/tonnes”) is going to service that mission then they have to take interest in those payloads as well. Hence the EELV program and its current “commercial” operations game. The ONE thing that both Congress and NASA management has been adamant about is NOT using “commercial” medium or heavy lift for the main NASA mission planning. That is strictly SLS when and if it happens. Meanwhile Congress tends to ‘award’ other missions based somewhat on what the DoD actually says it needs, followed a distant second by costs.
In addressing that btw:
Fasquadron wrote:
I would have thought the ideal would be a program based around the use of the Atlas V or Delta IV - the Atlas V had
some especially favourable upgrade paths if heavy lift was the goal. The Delta IV upgrade pathways
have their own advantages though. For example, using a US-sourced engine and (
according to this document) the Delta IVs were likely to be less expensive per kg of payload. And even the base Delta IV and Atlas V could have supported a program with a space station and using Orion capsules in orbit.
Neither the Atlas nor Delta were a “NASA” program or design so they weren’t considered. Specifically because they don’t use “legacy” Shuttle hardware, systems or contractors/sub-contractors. (Again that’s enshrined in the relevant authorization bill, NASA is not given a choice here) They can be used in a limited fashion for testing and qualification but NOT for operations. Especially not for manned missions. (Commercial Crew gives some wiggle room but that’s ONLY for possible LEO services)
And the cited document in fact notes that the Delta-IV is in fact NOT cheaper than the Atlas was even with American engines. (The ambiguity is related to how much said engines would require in R&D and operation) And again politics had been involved with decisions there too. Even before the engine issues with the Atlas the Air Force had been directed to procure only Delta-IV and Delta-IV Heavy flights, (SpaceX protested and won the right to fly some Falcon-9 missions later on) and to NOT select to utilize any Atlas missions. While many assumed this down-select would cause a crisis with LM it was pointed out that at the time LM already had a full commercial Atlas manifest and they frankly didn’t NEED the DoD contracts. (NASA was not forced to ‘choose’) This of course has changed a bit. Not as much as you’d think though as the majority of DoD flights will use the Delta-IV/Heavy as it is not commercially competitive.
It has been pointed out numerous times by advocates of both boosters that a possible NASA or commercial use manned spacecraft, (Starliner, Dragon, Dreamchaser, etc) could fly on either the Delta-IV Heavy or an Atlas V variant (Falcon-9 kinda goes without saying) but NASA will not commit to anything but a few limited missions to the ISS and is steadfast that Orion will carry all official and BLEO mission crews. Likely on an SLS.
E of Pi is quite correct in that DIRECT’s Jupiter LV was probably the best way forward despite the lower materials safety factor, (arguably since it used a capsule with launch escape system it was worlds more ‘safe’ than the Shuttle) and would have been available sooner. But again it came down to what did the politicians want and despite what they said they (Congress and therefore NASA management) had no requirement for an ‘early’ operational vehicle. So why not take the time and build what you “want” rather than what you might have sooner but is less ‘capable’ in the long run?
As noted the main “driver” for SLS is political not mission so the main issue will remain finding a ‘reason’ to build a better system. Something to keep in mind is that while folks like DIRECT and others had actually been pointing out that LVs like Jupiter, Delta-IV Heavy and Atlas V Heavy would be compatible with manned LEO launch missions, (all over-qualified of course but…) they could also carry substantial re-supply and/or new station modules to the ISS. Both Bush and Griffin were assuming and planning to have the ISS deorbited very soon into the then Constellation/VSE planning. They had no plans or need for ISS servicing until Congress intervened and declared that they WOULD include ISS support in any future NASA plans.
As Congress had no intention, (still hasn’t) of actually authorizing or supporting a return to the Moon let alone Mars, (they are finally facing the fact that once SLS is actually available it will have to have payloads but you’ll notice the lack of funding for those is still an issue) the actual ‘mission’ of the SLS remains unclear at best. And it was Congress that very explicitly did not support either the SEI or the VSE or really any BLEO mission. Yet that same Congress is clear that “NASA astronauts” will likely fly “somewhere” on a ‘NASA spacecraft” at “some” time and ONE of those spacecraft will (bylaw) be SLS.
That’s all about politics and keeping the politicians happy.
As Sydney Camm (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2) so rightly put it and to paraphrase:
“All modern aircraft (and spacecraft) have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics”
You can get the first three right all you want, even throw in cost and most of the time what comes out will be determined by that fourth factor alone.
Now getting into AH, (see, trying to get back on ‘subject’ really I am
) what you need is a plausible reason for Congress to actually support a near-term Shuttle derived vehicle rather than a long-term program like going to Mars under the SEI. THE problem is that while the Shuttle was limited to LEO quite obviously any SDHLV, (like Jupiter) is not by simple inclusion of propulsion stages in the ‘stack’. In the former case Congress could easily limit the capability by not funding certain aspects, (such as the long list of “Return to the Moon” proposals since the Shuttle first flew) while the latter could somewhat be handled in a similar manner with care. But sooner or later you have to get directly involved, (like not funding the Altair lander and reducing any funding for any “lander” planning which is currently the case) and it is questionable how long that can be done without raising questions. (Arguably quite a while I guess if OTL is any indication)
But, let’s say there was a compelling reason that came up and Congress was not only willing but eager for a short-term solution to replacing the Shuttles general capability.
“General” because I have to point out that the Shuttle had two (2) priority design missions:
-1 Carry a large volume/mass payload to LEO
-2 Always fly with a crew
While it was stated that a “lesson learned” from Challenger was don’t mix crew and cargo (hence Ares-1 to carry crew and Ares-V to carry the payload even though it was a huge waste) in truth that wasn’t the whole truth. The actual lesson learned was not to carry both ON THE SHUTTLE since it had no crew escape system. But we went on to do just that for another 25 years anyway so…
So we need a reason which will ‘fly’ with Congress and a rather pressing need to do so as soon as possible. I’d suggest given the priority Congress placed on the ISS that could be a viable reason. Say there is a fire or major damage to the ISS and it is no longer capable of viable operation. The main question would be when this could plausibly happen at a point where Congress is willing to make replacing it a priority for NASA.
Griffin and Bush II have to be out otherwise this plays into their hands, they’d (Griffin at least, I’ve found no reason to support that Bush actually supported the VSE he suggested and he caved once Congress indicated they were opposed to it) planned on ditching the ISS anyway.
If we have Congress stand firm on replacing the ISS AND the Shuttle then something like DIRECT’s Jupiter looks very enticing. Specifically if it’s mandated to decouple it from manned flight. (On the Gripping Hand, Orion development benefits from having essentially unlimited mass to play with) Where things get dicey is once Jupiter is up and running it will become clear that once its ‘main’ mission of replacing the ISS is done that there is a LOT of potential inherent in the system that could be exploited.
Not that it hasn’t happened before mind you:
https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedfiles/...uttle_launches/shuttlevariationsfinalaiaa.pdf
But let’s assume both an earlier DIRECT is what comes out of the ESAS (Exploration Systems Architecture Study, 2005, LV24 crew and LV25 cargo versions) since it is ISS replacement rather than Lunar requirements that drive the program. (And again allow Congressional support this time around) Assume we get a 2006 approval, (probably have to override or fire Griffin but my heart is not broken) and development begins later that same year. In 2009 DIRECT was estimating that Jupiter could be flying operationally by 2013 so it would be aimed at having this version by late 2009 or early 2010? (OTL Bush declared in 2004 that the US sections/commitment would be complete by 2010. Congress has been constantly extending that date, currently to 2025) So it’s almost ready to fly by the time Obama takes office and without the bloat and hopefully somewhat on schedule cancelation is less likely. (And again, it’s Congress who actually decides the budget and spending anyway)
The Orion test flight was 2014 OTL but we’ll assume that without the redesigns and launcher related delays it should be ready earlier. (2008? Maybe pad it some and call it 2010 as well) So it is possible to test the first operational Jupiter, (assuming the name of course) and the first Orion at the same time. Call it the middle of 2010. So first quarter of 2011 sees the first segment of the “New International Space Station” (NISS) launched into orbit along with an Orion based assembly and work crew. Depending on who and how much other support than the US would probably be the driver for construction and operations. Call it mid-2013 for initial operating capability?
Randy
