Abbey Lane: They're Back

I agree with the last sentence in the report.
It is somewhat narrow in scope, however the intent is sound.

The status quo is changing this is for sure.

These recommendations are crap. Calling the shuttle the most successful spacecraft? The shuttle has killed more astronauts than all other human spacecraft combined, including all Russian vehicles and their cosmonaut deaths! NASA is not the only body capable of building and launching earth observing satellites! To show how disjointed this document is they first deride Orion for being too limited like the Apollo capsule with its water landings, then they recommend amending this by making Orion even more like Apollo, using the same designs in fact. Their main recommendations point to transforming NASA into a more activist department of energy and sierra club hybrid. I think they forgot the central themes of the NASA charter: To improve life here, to extend life there, to find life beyond."

CAIB page 210: Because of the risks inherent in the original design of the Space Shuttle, because that design was based in many aspects on now-obsolete technologies, and because the Shuttle is now an aging system but still developmental in character, it is in the nationʼs interest to replace the Shuttle as soon as possible as the primary means for transporting humans to and from Earth orbit.

CAIB page 211: It is the view of the Board that the previous attempts to develop a replacement vehicle for the aging Shuttle represent a failure of national leadership.

Another "band aid" approach to fixing NASA. Too much of NASA's budget is for human mission operations...over 30% in 2008 buget. NASA must be removed from the flight operation business and shuttle privatization is the first step. Also the cost of a Saturn V is prohibitive...we must go with space based reusable transportation systems. If the two old NASA flight controllers who wrote this report would just stop living in NASA past glory days and accept change.

Forever the opportunist to get back into a position of influence within the Space Activities. Seems like this is playing to what may become the President's space Agenda. How many times and how many dollars is NASA going to change direction. We must not forget Abbey was involved with the Space Exploration Initiative under Bush 41. Does Muratore have a grudge against JSC? Just asking

The proposal is quite good. The only major concern I have is continuation of the Shuttle, at least in its current form. It is an amazingly capable vehicle, but suffers from the inherent weakness of foam shedding and its impact on the side-mounted orbiter. The faster we can move away from this problem, the better.

Going to an EELV + Orion option would probably represent the quickest route to ensuring U.S. crewed access to space. This could serve as an interim for a 2nd generation Shuttle or perhaps a completely commercially developed solution.

John Muratore proposing to cancel Orion and replace it with an X-38 derivative. Should this really surprise anyone?

That's the problem with everything in these times. Everyone smells blood in the water and wants to replace everything with their own personal pet projects. Orion is not the problem and never was.

NASA must be removed from the flight operation business and shuttle privatization is the first step.

What does that even mean? Who would buy it?

John Muratore was one of my instructors at Rice. I don't think he would have put his name on this proposal if he didn't think it was the best solution, nor do I think he would have done this out of spite.

Orion is not the problem and never was.

A bloated and gold plated spacecraft that can barely make it to LEO on a Deltva IV Heavy? Surely you jest.

We've got problems all across the board, NASA and elsewhere, denying them isn't going to solve them, or get you anywhere.

This is a poorly written and poorly argued position paper; lots of arm-waving and posturing. Has more of an Op-Ed quality to it. I sincerely hope it doesn't resonate with the Obama Administration.

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board and Aldridge Commission Report have much better recommendations and analysis to offer the White House. NASA's offer such potential to stimulate the long-term economic development and scientific advanced of the United States.

Besides the Orion on EELV and solar power demonstration platform, this Abbey/Lane/Muratore paper is just full of stale ideas. Why must we continue to worship at the altar of the Shuttle Program? Let it rest.

"Canceling human Mars discussions would be a pragmatic statement..."

What, another gag order on NASA employees? Do these guys realize how little human spaceflight spending actually is directed to humans on Mars right now anyway? Such a statement sounds more like a retreat from opening frontiers. A step backwards, I think.

"Europe and Japan should be invited to participate in the X-38 development..."

Great, the billion dollar ISS lifeboat. And let's invite China to join us in continuing DynaSaur development.

Where the heck went the opportunity for private sector involvement in ISS astronaut transport anyways? COTS must be dead.

"Europe and Japan should be invited to participate in the X-38 development..."

I thought X-38 was rather close to completion when it was canceled. How much development work is left to do?

It appears five prototypes were built. Do those still exist, somewhere or were they scrapped?

For Critic:

Define "bloated and gold-plated" and we'll go from there.

I went through it really quickly and found a lot of good stuff.

However, Moon and Mars mission are not exclusive of an emphasis on Energy and Environment. I think they should talk with scientists with such expertise.

Also the Shuttle issue is that there is no other choice at this time even though I would love to see COTS take over: They ignored it probably because it is a direct competition to Orion (bet it the current one or Apollo sized or X-38), hence the current NASA.

The major mistake to me is that NASA should focus on all these things through an ambitious human exploration plan of the Solar System and leave ISS servicing to COTS. Human exploration does actually require robotic exploration so please don't start ;-)

Wow

The rocket boys really are a sensitive bunch.

Boo Hooo Hooo someone proposed change. It appears Ares 1x is scheduled to fly this summer, can it hold schedule and budget ??? with Calibrated flight test data to analyze. He he he...

If not, On the chopping block..

The stim package already funds aeronautics and science.

Put the screws to the rocket launchers, Give us money Give us money keep crying. You will get your money alright, NONE!
Now you have school in the morning, go to bed with no dinner and no TV for you for the whole week.

I thought X-38 was rather close to completion when it was canceled. How much development work is left to do?

It appears five prototypes were built. Do those still exist, somewhere or were they scrapped?
Posted by: Bill White at January 30, 2009 1:22 PM

I know that the first vehicle to go into space (ship 201) is still in storage at JSC and was close to completion.

I worked on X-38 on the Dryden side and thought it was a very good concept which was killed because of politics. All the atmospheric testing on the scale models were just about complete when the ax fell.

I don't think he would have put his name on this proposal if he didn't think it was the best solution, nor do I think he would have done this out of spite.

Neither do I. But that doesn't make him right.

A couple of notes: there was one flight (proto-flight) X-38 vehicle built that could have been refurbed to be a Crew Return Vehicle. It was partly disassembled when the X-38 was terminated (the Europeans had provided electronics boxes which were returned to them) and stored. They had a sad parade when they wheeled it, wrapped in plastic, away.

There were other, non-space qualified, versions built that were air dropped.

Of the three authors only John Muratore was a NASA flight controller (he was also an IUS test director at Cape Canaveral). George Abbey was never a flight controller.

The Shuttle has been an extremely successful vehicle - flying many missions. It has done things that no other vehicle built or in design could do - with the Remote Manipulator System for instance. The two times that we lost Shuttle vehicles the Shuttle performed well, it was sent into situations that it was not designed for. For instance launching in cold weather or landing with unknown holes in the wing leading edge.

The Shuttle does have unmatched capability to bring heavy replacement parts (for instance the failure prone Control Moment Gyros) up to the Station. Without the Shuttle we will have a difficult time resupplying the Station.

Back to the meat of the proposal - the paper has some interesting ideas but when you start to do a development schedule and budget there will be more to discuss.

Define "bloated and gold-plated" and we'll go from there.

At the highest level barely able to make orbit on its booster.

If you can't get your hydrogen powered upper stage all the way to orbit, you are either doing something drastically wrong on the first stage, and your payload is too heavy, or both. By definition the result follows. It's simple rocket science.

The entire architecture is a joke. Start over. This stuff is already thoroughly obsoleted by Soyuz, ignoring the Falcon 9.

We aren't going to be able to do what we want to do in Space over the next thirty years with segmented SRBs. Get over it.

I don't agree with most of what's proposed in the paper, but at least these guys know how to think in terms of election cycles.

Rand,
I was simply addressing the comment directed at Muratore's character. No more, no less.

Critic,

Your comments are all over the place and angry for some reason.

What you have just pointed out was problems with the booster, not Orion. Orion has requirements to meet, requirements that keep getting reduced because of Ares 1 performance issues. You started this conversation in regards to a comment I made about Orion and then called it "bloated and gold-plated".

So again, tell me why Orion is the problem and not Ares 1. Why is Orion "bloated and gold-plated".

Interesting but very predictable. George Abbey (NASA PM that built Space Station) and John Moratore (PM on the failed X-38 Space Station Crew Return Vehicle project) will always think they were right. What do the taxpayers that payed for both think?

I am a taxpayer and I think it is time to move on.

The whole paper sounds like a marketing pitch for Abbey and Moratore to the new administration -- not a viable US Manned Space approach.

Remember the words of JFK "We do these things not because they are easy, but because they hard."

Yes, our space program is to demonstrate US superiority.

Yes, we will reach where others can only dream.

Otherwise, why should the taxpayers be willing to pay for the program(s) especially while there are so many strains on the US budget.

> I thought X-38 was rather close to completion when it was canceled. How much development work is left to do?

Umm, the X-38 was the basically unpowered (it only had
enough delta-V to de-orbit, with most of the deceleration being provided by atmospheric braking, as it usual) Crew Return Vehicle - it had to be lifted to orbit by the Shuttle. So it's in no sense a replacement for Shuttle, Ares, or anything of that ilk.

Are you thinking of the X-30 or X-33 (although the latter would not have been SSTO in the initial version)?

Priceless! The advertisement block on NASA Watch just beneath the body of this article is currently showing "Back to the Future - Own all three on DVD!". Couldn't be more appropriate with Mr. Abbey's plan.

As I recall the original CEV was a Dynasoar-like vehicle that I thought had a lot of possibilities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CEV_Lockheed_Martin.jpg

Then the decision was made to switch to the Apollo type capsule. I was never impressed with the Orion capsule…but I'm an IT professional, not an aerospace engineer.

This is going to be interesting to say the least to see how this shakes out.

What you have just pointed out was problems with the booster, not Orion.

I'm pointing out severe problems with the ARCHITECTURE, all across the board. The vehicle when it leaves the pad is an integrated spacecraft. Talk about painting yourself into a corner. You painted it, it will be up to someone else to get you out of it, because you can't do it. The evidence speaks.

I'm not justifying another crank architecture or policy here, either. All of these guys are in the penalty box until 2016.

X-38 V201 (prototype, not operational vehicle) was three years from first flight at the time it was cancelled in 2001. And that was an optimistic schedule, with an already-assembled team.

Once the delay of re-assembling the team is accounted for, X-38 couldn't be made ready any earlier than an accelerated Orion.

While I don't agree with a lot of what in this prescription-actually a lot is just fluff with no substance-a couple noteworthy points: Give Muratore the respect he is due. He has serious technical credentials, far outweighing anyone in Constellation, SOMD or ESMD today. He created today's Mission Control in record time and with a record low budget. He created X-38, a real space vehicle if it had been allowed to fly, in record time and with an almost nonexistent budget. If Orion had had someone like him leading the technical end of things it might have actually made reasonable progress.

Shuttle needs to be kept going. There are no alternatives. We wasted the opportunity to create one. Yes, Shuttle has its potential flaws, yes its expensive, and yes its aging technology, but its flown more people safely than everything else combined. If its managed properly it should be able to keep going another 5-10 years. Its no one's preference but there are no other options. So fly the minimum number of missions you can afford to each year while keeping the exisiting Shuttle workforce on operations intact; most likely 3 or 4 missions a year until something else is available.

Get NASA and the government out of direct management of crewed launch vehicles and spacecraft. Dragon may not be the answer-they have no track record. Establish the top level requirements and establish a competition that makes it worthwhile for the winning aerospace firm to deliver a new flight ready vehicle. Similarly, once this vehicle is far enough along in development, establish a competition to let industry figure out how most effectively to operate it. The repeated failures of NASA to develop a new vehicle, whether of spaceplane variety or the steroidal Orion, is due to the simple fact that cronyism, bureaucracy, and non-existent experience is the face of NASA today. For rocket science, even of the manned variety, the experience is no more in industry than in the government. Let NASA become the anchor customer just like the airlines do with a new airliner.

Even the development of an Ares-5 class vehicle, which will be required at some point in the future (10 -20 years) should be done in similar fashion through a competition with minimal NASA technical involvement.

At the same time, downsize the space station organization and operations. Most of the program office technical functions should be in the technical organizations. Get NASA out of the routine operations; for a mature vehicle the operations organization needs to be minimized. Establish a research institute that will lead the operation. Emulate the smaller Russian training and operations organizations and processes.

In human spaceflight NASA needs to focus its energy on human research, technology development and research specifically applicable for future space systems development, including in situ resource utilization, establishment of standards for safety and operation. The next big development project that NASA should focus on is the establishment of a space hotel suitable for large numbers of people. Once the basic R&D and the new next launcher are understood, Offer a competition for h=the hotel. It also ought to be competed and not involve s significant NASA contract. We need to expand exponentially the number of participants in spaceflights, or we are just stuck in the current mode of heroes going into LEO. For another 50 years.

I quickly read the white paper and 2 good ideas were presented; extending the Shuttle through 2015 and wireless power transmission from orbit to Earth. I disagree with scrapping the Constellation program. We should be asking the Administration and Congress to fund all of NASA's programs instead of canceling some program in order to fund other programs.

I agree with a lot of the items in the proposal, but I'm going to point out a couple things that don't make sense to me.

1. Keep the Shuttle flying until 2015 - Why would Obama risk a major political setback from having another Shuttle disaster in a Shuttle flight beyond those needed to finish the ISS? Everyone knows the Shuttle is dangerous, so if there's an unnecessary disaster he'll get the blame. Not only that, but it's too expensive.

2. Do the financial numbers add up? The only big savings I saw in the proposal was to cancel Ares 1. (Yes, it also suggested cancelling manned lunar surface items, but how much money is really going into that now or in the near future?) Now I know that Ares 1 is a huge black hole where money vanishes without a trace, but is it *that* big of a black hole? In exchange they're proposing to have NASA:

- do a big ramp-up of Earth observations and science
- increase robotic space science
- start a new effort in energy, including non-space work
- shrink and redevelop Orion
- replace Ares 1 with another vehicle to launch Orion
(it would be an existing vehicle, but I assume it would
not be totally free)
- deal with Ares 1 shutdown costs
- fly the Shuttle until 2015
- presumably support Soyuz flights to ISS still (since Shuttle can't serve as a crew rescue vehicle for long stays)
- ramp up ISS use
- develop Ares V or an Ares V equivalent
- do manned missions to asteroids or comets
- have a major increase in aeronautics work
- do demos of Space Solar Power
- new propulsion research program with DOD

Ares 1 is really expensive, so I agree that you could do a good chunk of this in its place. Personally I think even the better chunks from the above items are worth the trade, since I don't see value in Ares 1 - if anything Ares 1 is
a minus because it competes with commercial space. But trade all of this for Ares 1?

As far as I can tell this is all done using traditional in-house NASA development. I don't see anything about commercial space in all of this, except as a possible development in 2015-2020 that NASA might take advantage of. Thus I'd expect a lot of this to be expensive (eg: Shuttle).

Are they counting on more NASA funding? Major inputs from other space agencies? I'd like to see an unbiased professional look at the likely budget for it all.

3. What happens to COTS cargo while we keep the Shuttle flying? Would we lose our developing, and from my point of view extremely important, commercial space launch capabilities? Would NASA have to pay to shut them down (since they did put skin in the game)? The proposal should address this point.

Unfortunately both Lane and Abbey have axes to grind, with Lane harshly criticizing the VSE in 2004 and Abbey being sent out to pasture by Sean O'Keefe in 2002. What's next, the return of Dan Goldin?

Let's set the safety issure with the Space Shuttle straight. The only thing wrong with the current launch stack configuration is the susceptability to foam damage originating from the External Tank during ascent. During the post-Columbia return to flight re-design time frame, positive fixes to the foam shedding problem were proposed but nixed because of the premise that the Shuttle Program was to end in 2009 and it would take too long to incorporate these fixes. Given the low number of flights that were expected after resumption of flight until the end of the program, it was determined to not be worth the effort and cost to fix the problem. Had the fix proposals offered by several recognized NASA structural experts been seriously considered, the Space Shuttle would now be poised to support the program ad-infinitum.

Dust off the External Tank fixes, fix what's broke and let's press on with the program.

Critic,

I'm well aware of the architecture. Integrated vehicle though only goes so far at this stage of the design. Yes, interfaces must be defined, etc but putting this in the proper perspective it is the job of the booster (Ares 1) to lift the payload (Orion). Orion has a set of requirements and a target mass to perform the work in space it will be required to do. Ares 1, or any launch vehicle, should be able to lift the payload it is being created for with some margin. That is the problem and Orion continues to suffer in requirement deletion and mass sheding because of Ares 1. While it is always good to minimize weight regardless and all designs usually start out a little fat, at some point when the gaol poasts keep being moved because of the launch vehicle it becomes ridiculous.

Bringing it back to our conversation, now you're talking about the "integrated vehicle". I will remind you yet again you started this conversation by pulling on something I said about Orion and it being "gold-plated and bloated". I still have not heard your rationale for that and instead just see you jumping all over the place being rather angry because you keep missing the target and cannot back up your initial statement.

Give Muratore the respect he is due. He has serious technical credentials, far outweighing anyone in Constellation, SOMD or ESMD today. He created today's Mission Control in record time and with a record low budget. He created X-38, a real space vehicle if it had been allowed to fly, in record time and with an almost nonexistent budget. If Orion had had someone like him leading the technical end of things it might have actually made reasonable progress.

NO disrepect, However Mr Muratore is not an aerodynamics expert by any measure.

as far as outweighing anyone in SOMD or ESMD well this really is not to hard to do.

Create the X-38 Give us a break.

Please look at the pictures and let us know why it was canceled
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-38/Small/EC98-44461-11.jpg
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-24/Medium/E-23377.jpg

Notice the split control surfaces on the X24A, I guess they are there just for looks.

whatever.

How about inviting George Abbey to host a Q&A forum?

We could call it..........Dear Leader Abbey!

Please look at the pictures and let us know why it was canceled
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-38/Small/EC98-44461-11.jpg
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-24/Medium/E-23377.jpg

Notice the split control surfaces on the X24A, I guess they are there just for looks.

whatever.
Posted by: Flash Gorden at January 31, 2009 1:01 PM

The X-24A vehicle was rocket powered before it landed as a lifting body. The control surfaces on it were needed where the X-38 (the one you showed was the first atmospheric one, the aft shape changed with V-131R) had the parafoil for additional steering.

I personally was responsible for arming the pyrotechnics that deployed the parafoil and witnessed every landing of all three atmospheric vehicles. They proved the technology and the next logical step was V201.

There was no "failure" as eluded to by another poster here. It was a political tug of war, and unfortunately, a very bad decision to cancel X-38.

John Muratore was not the most personable person to work with, but he had a way of getting people motivated to work long hours to get the job done.

> It was a political tug of war, and unfortunately, a very bad decision to cancel X-38.

I got the impression that a major factor was the cost; I gather the thinking was that it would be cheaper to just pay the Russians to build and loft more Soyuzes, rather than pay for i) the whole X-38 program, and then ii) Shuttle launches to put it on-station.

@ Noel,

"Umm, the X-38 was the basically unpowered (it only had
enough delta-V to de-orbit, with most of the deceleration being provided by atmospheric braking, as it usual) Crew Return Vehicle - it had to be lifted to orbit by the Shuttle. So it's in no sense a replacement for Shuttle, Ares, or anything of that ilk."

I think that the idea being made by Bill was to replace Orion with X-38, launched by something big and heafty like a D-IVH, Atlas-VH or a Jupiter-120. As it was designed to work with the ISS anyway, it could serve as a crew access/return vehicle for the station (I allow those who know more than me to judge on whether it would be faster to deliver or better than Orion on this mission).

As I understand this proposal, you would basically be using it as a mini-Shuttle. Any vehicles for exploration further than LEO would be assembled in orbit (probably docked to the ISS) from bits flown up by unmanned flights. Then the X-38 would deliver a crew who would then set off in the specially-designed vehicle.

Basically, Abbey, et al, are proposing to cancel the 'Earth-launched, direct ascent' aspect of Constellation in favour of a LEO assembled, EOR architecture. However, that would be a long way off; I might be wrong but they seemed to be blowing very cold on any manned spaceflight beyond LEO for some time.

NASA must be removed from the flight operation business and shuttle privatization is the first step.

What does that even mean? Who would buy it?

Reply: NASA would buy shuttle mission at nearly half their cost...also the privatizated shuttle would be commercailly competitive... see nasaproblems.com One common missing factor in most of the comments and the report...LAUNCH COST! We must reduce the launch cost to stay in the space game!

... to replace Orion with X-38, launched by something big and heafty ... it could serve as a crew access/return vehicle for the station

The problem is that the X-38 was designed around a very restricted mission profile, so it had no space manoeuvering capabilites, and very limited consumables (6 hours, IIRC). Adding the capabilities you'd need to do much else with it would, I would assume, exceed the interior space available (and maybe run up against other limits, e.g. having dangerous materials in too close proximity to crew), so then you'd have to build something bigger, basically resulting in a whole new vehicle.

Don't get me wrong, I was bummed when the X-38 was cancelled - but the process of converting a space vehicle meant to do one thing into another isn't easy.

Criric wrote:

"Define "bloated and gold-plated" and we'll go from there.

At the highest level barely able to make orbit on its booster".

Blatantly untrue. Blatantly. Orion/Ares I have plenty of margin to perform the ISS mission. You may not want to believe it, but it is true.

"If you can't get your hydrogen powered upper stage all the way to orbit, you are either doing something drastically wrong on the first stage, and your payload is too heavy, or both. By definition the result follows. It's simple rocket science".

It's pure BS. Optimal staging points depend not only upon maximum perfomance to orbit, but also ascent heating considerations and safe stage disposal. Taking a stage all the way to orbit is the LAST thing you want to do, as you either have no control over the eventual impact point, or at best you have a huge debris footptrint like the ET.

Noel wrote:
"The problem is that the X-38 was designed around a very restricted mission profile, so it had no space manoeuvering capabilites, and very limited consumables (6 hours, IIRC).

That's absolutely correct. The real kicker was you really couldn't figure out a way to launch it with people in it. You can't just stick it on top of an expendable booster as the bending loads associated with a lifting body tend to get awfully high. You could put it inside a shroud, but then the question becomes how do you perform a launch abort? In any event, it was pretty clear that it couldn't survive the entry associated with a launch abort as the control surface hinge moments become excessive.

And, it's not a shape you can use to come back from the moon. So WHY is it a good idea again?

I have been reading some of the comments and no where did I see someone address the cost of constellation/Ares launches compared to Shuttle. Certainly Ares will be cheaper to launch, however, If you have to launch 3 or 4 of them to equal a shuttle launch,(payload wise) then where is the money saved and you take that many more risks because as we all know, this is a risky business. Here's my two cents; continue to use shuttle for payload launches (remember shuttle-C) and build, in LEO, a spacecraft to go to the moon and mars (with a lander)and return to LEO and let the shuttle return the payload to earth. We've already built a spacestation so we have the ability. Yes, it's going to be terribly expensive but I once read that one shot to the moon on Orion was around 5 billion. As this system of going back and forth to the moon and LEO is used it's cost will be spread out over all it's missions.What do you think?

Its very intresting, in the times of economic woes, that people are still complaining of the past. NASA Money has been spent, NASA people have jobs, NASA people are paid. No one is in dire straits, yet. Lets not forget Abbey was the one who kept the ISS going and kept lots of people in work and helped the Areospace economy by doing so.

The thing that must be done is to ensure the US has a stategic postion in Space, and the best way to do so is to invest in innovations in the sector. By doing so the report states that it will have a multiplier effect on other sectors of the economy including energy.

I do not see anyone posting comments on here taking the time and effort to make any recommendations to the new administration, let alone be forward thinking in the fact that the best political reationship the US currently has is with Russia and their aerospace program. By working in collaboration step change can occur. We just need people to view change as an opportunity for the betterment of everyone involved in the sector.