EELVs are Not "Dead" As A Crew Launch Option

My original prediction, based on the Augustine Report Executive Summary, was ISS to 2020 or longer, Ares I+V dead, Orion on life support, STS dragged out, Ares V lite studied, commercial crew launch pushed, and international partners hit up for money.

Based on the above Hyperbola article and the Flightglobal article linked to in the Hyperbola article, I'm feeling mostly more confident in my prediction. Orion seems likely to limp along. Ares V lite would be recommended at least for study. But, since more money doesn't look to be forthcoming, first flight would be somewhere in the unspecified future. I don't see NASA themselves using EELVs in the HSF program, but as Keith says, they certainly could find use for commercial crew launch.

The one part of my prediction that I'm losing confidence in is an STS extension. I'm not seeing the kind of sense of urgency I'd expect if more Shuttle flights were going to be added. I'm expecting the NASA budget to be kept at a minimal level, and more Shuttle flights would require money that isn't going to be there.

This is an ugly situation. It's going to be up to the commercial sector to save things.

Man rating a EELV to launch the Orion plus developing an Ares V or Ares V lite heavy lift vehicle would be just as expensive as the Ares 1/ Ares V configuration since you still have to develop the 5 segment SRB for the Ares V.

We already have a basic HLV, its called the Space Shuttle which basically lifts an entire rocket plane plus 25 tonnes of payload plus up to 11 passengers into orbit. Replace the shuttle space plane with only the SSME plus a cargo bay (sidemount) and we'll have our heavy lift vehicle.

Marcel F. Williams

Marcel, I'd bet dollars to donuts that sidemount winds up the way to go.
Just makes sense to me (and no, I don't have any inside information).

My gut instinct is that we'll see Orion 'de-prioritied'. Basically, they'll use commercial crew launch to take the pressure off Orion so they can get it right rather than have to rush it to support the ISS. As several others have correctly said, even if Bolden doesn't like the idea of EELV as an Orion launcher, there is no fundamental reason why one could not be used as the LV for a commercial crew taxi.

I also think that Orion itself is going to be 'upsized' back to the form it had before the Ares-I performance-mandated changes. All the bells and whistles removed to fit it on Ares-I, such as land landing and reusibility, will be restored. The resulting 25t+ vehicle will be earmarked to fly on some kind of HLV.

What kidn of HLV? Ares-V-Lite, as it will still require the development of a 10m-diameter core, regenerative-cooled RS-68 and the five-segment RSRM, will probably not last long in the review process on budget grounds. It will become a two-horse race between the SD-HLLV and the 8.4m-diameter, SSME-powered core with 4-segment shuttle-type RSRMs (call it 'Direct' or whatever you like).

The bitter cynic in me thinks that the winner will be the result of a bitter political battle inside NASA. The side-mount version will be popular with some as "A NASA Idea" because John Shannon presented it at the Augustine Hearing. Support for the in-line version will be divided between those driven by anti-Shuttle sentiment and those who feel that the marginal cost difference is worth it for a vehicle with theoretical greater maximum performance and through-TOI payload volume.

I wouldn't claim to be anywhere near clued-in enough about the internal politics of NASA as to guess how it will all work out. However, I suspect that Bolden may have to impose a solution because the factions cannot be made to compromise.

@Frank Sietzen

Unfortunately, when it comes to politics, logic does not always prevail:-)

However, the SD_HLV was the only concept listed by the Augustine commission that was compatible with extending the current space shuttle program (eliminating the gap!). Although it worries me a bit that the commission merged the SD-HLV in with DIRECT which I believe is a more expensive and probably longer to develop concept even though it would result in a superior inline launch configuration.

But its difficult for me to see Bolden and the Obama administration allowing a 5 to 10 year gap until a manned NASA or private shuttle successor arrives. That would be political suicide for the Democrats, IMO.

The fact that the SD-HLV is also a long studied-- NASA concept-- may also be in its favor.

Marcel F. Williams

Newpapyrus-my colleague Buzz Aldrin presented to the commission details of his Shuttle-side mount heavy lifter, the Aquila. Buzz's team claims (I was not involved in this) that Augustine staff requested additional technical details on Aquila later. Buzz also presented to OMB, OSTP in the White House Sit room in August. Again, certain OMB staffers were said to request additional data on the Aquila design.
What does all of this mean? Beats me, but there it is...I was not present in either case, tho' I write for Buzz and give him communications advice...

I've been thinking that an Ares V Lite would be picked over the alternatives mainly for political reasons. Ares V Lite could mollify Constellation proponents by keeping Constellation limping along. I don't think long development times will necessarily be seen as a problem either, since that's a good excuse for stretching out the timeline. I'm doubtful that any beyond-LEO missions are going to be launched until after 2020 anyway.

For LEO and the ISS, I think all the bets will be on commercial. It doesn't look like Orion will be put on an EELV, and using a heavy lift launcher to send Orion to the ISS is likely to be too expensive. I had originally thought the STS program would be extended until commercial crew lanch was ready, but now I'm thinking the administration is just going to live with a gap and rely on Soyuz for crew launch for however long is necessary.

I'm certainly not happy with the situation, but it looks like money is going to be tight, and that's going to put severe constraints on what NASA can do. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not.

I definitely support expansion of commercial space activities, though. Getting human space flight distanced from politics can only be a good thing.

So, is Ares 5 'Lite' still 'heavy lift' in NASA's nomenclature? Or perhaps 'medium heavy'? And why aren't EELVs 'man rated'? STS, Soyuz, or the Ares1 with all its wavers are not 'man rated' by NASA either. They do have engineers with penchant for engineering precision at ESMD, don't they?