Rocket Motors to Nowhere?

I wondered about that myself. I suppose under current law the ATK contract is still in effect.

I'm not for or against SRBs on a cargo lifter. But I have real doubts about MSFC developing a system within realistic budget and time targets and thus suspect SRBs won't be needed for many years.

Frank,

This is a chapter in the book "A 70 Metric-Ton Launch Vehicle to Nowhere".

Even if this dictated by Congress HLV ever becomes operational (and that's a very big if), what 70 metric-ton payloads will there be to launch?

The answer is very clear: none.

Congress once again is trying to have their cake and eat it to. This dictated by Congress HLV will suck up any dollars that aren't protected by other potent space interests (like space science for example). This means that there will be little to no funding available for anything other than building this "70 Metric-Ton Launch Vehicle to Nowhere".

Once again we're on the path we've seen over and over and over again with NASA Human Spaceflight: wasted years, careers and billions of dollars, with little to show for it but lots of pay stubs in select congressional districts.

Well, when the Administration's plan for HSF is 'we'll do something nebulous but good at some underined point far off in the future', others step in to fill the vacuum - even if their plan leaves something to be desired.

Don't worry, 'this too shall pass'. We're in for a lengthy period of drift, I expect.

There's going to be a battle royal between the administration and the incoming Congress about big stuff next spring, so they may get around to paying attenion to NASA by next fall.

I wonder how long it will be till some joker puts up a billboard with a picture of Constellation, labelled 'Miss me yet?'

And maybe the commercial guys will get something going while this is all happening...

Noel

An Orion CEV with no vehicle to launch it on. An HLV that is so expensive NASA won't be able to afford payloads on it and that won't fly for many years, if ever.

And then there is the commercial space industry that already has reliable launchers flying and with at least the LEO Dragon further along than NASA's LEO+BEO Orion but which NASA want's to delay any commercial crew decision on for at least a year.

This is madness in plain sight.

The Senate doesn't want to simply throw away what we've learned from the shuttle era and what we've already invested billions in as far as the Constellation program is concerned. And since the Obama administration decided to waste billions building nothing to go nowhere, the Senate really had no choice since Obama's non-space program would set NASA up for huge budget cuts in the future.

The Augustine Commission, the Senate, and the President all agree that we need to build a heavy lift vehicle. So it looks like that is what we're going to do. Once an HLV is built and operational then funding other space vehicles designed to be transported by the HLV becomes a lot easier and more affordable.

Does Obama have a lot of interest in NASA and in space? It should be pretty obvious by now that he doesn't!

Marcel F. Williams

A fair question to ask is: If there is a choice between an SRB-bearing rocket (Ares 1 or Ares V) and a comparable liquid-fuel-only launcher (Falcon 9, Falcon 9 Heavy or other), is there a clear, consistent favorite?

Here's someone's comparison which you can judge for yourself: http://martianchronicles.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/ares-1-x-vs-falcon-9-a-comparison/

The above article makes a dramatic contrast, although I'm a little concerned about Falcon 9 Heavy's 27 liquid fuel engines.
Also, to be perfectly, technically fair, the fact that NASA's Ares costs so far have been so much higher than SpaceX's Falcon costs, and NASA's projected cost per launch is so high, doesn't prove that SRMs are inherently more costly than liquid fuel rockets (although they may be, AFAIK).

But still, it looks like the Ares types being proposed just may have a challenge finding voluntary customers, hence justifying the tag "Rocket Motors to Nowhere?".

"But I have to ask why on Earth is NASA proceeding to invest time and money in testing boosters that may have no role in the future of human spaceflight."

I suppose maybe be because Congress has informed NASA that the law states explicitly that the program will continue until Congress tells them it's cancelled? But, actually, a much better reason is that starting and stopping major tests based on the current whim of politics is an idiotic thing to do and would be a way to guarantee that nothing gets accomplished ever.

Bravo to NASA for ignoring the current political flavor of the month, and actually testing rocket motors. It may have a role in a future launcher. It may not. But, either way, doing a real test means that we actually learn something and have some real world data to insert into the endless paper studies and "what if?" scenarios.

[rant] Who are you people? Don't you want an American space program? Why the constant vitriol against having a robust HSF program? It just boggles my mind... [grumble grumble] [end rant]

Okay, back to the subject at hand, quoting the article:

"But neither of the two bills actually specified the means for that Orion capsule to reach LEO as it is to be a sort of back-up to a commercially derived vehicle."

Actually the Senate bill requires that SLS must be fully man-rated for launching Orion with crew. It also requires that Orion (referred to as Multipurpose Crew Vehicle) must be fully Beyond-LEO capable, not a stripped-down CRV, and that one or more test flights to ISS are approved.

However, it also states that NASA must use commercial cargo and crew capabilities if and when they become available. So SLS does not spell the doom of commercial space. The SLS (with Orion) is strictly for backup capability to ISS, even the Senate acknowledges that.

Mark S.

On the question of why NASA would elect to proceed with the test, it may be a simple matter of money.

I'm making assumptions here, but... The test was scheduled as part of a program. If NASA steps in and tells ATK to wait a few weeks (or months), then that schedule is slipping day-for-day, with people and other resources basically standing around on-hold, but still getting paid. Therefore NASA would be piling up cost-plus charges every day that they delay the test.

I don't know the details of the contract, but it may have been a lot cheaper to go ahead with the test than to delay it for a few weeks.

Steve

It also requires that Orion (referred to as Multipurpose Crew Vehicle) must be fully Beyond-LEO capable, not a stripped-down CRV

So what's "Beyond-LEO capable"? Travel to an E-M L1 space station? Moon orbiting? Command module to a Moon lander? Travel to asteroids? Land on them? Mars orbiting? Command module to a Mars lander?

These are all such different missions we might give to Orion, that it's preposterous to design something today that can be used for any of them, much less all. The most we should do is design it for E-M L1. And I'm not even convinced of that. The "medium" option is make it the government-sponsored concept for operational LEO crew transport, on top of an EELV ==> the backstop for commercial crew. But I'm not even convinced of that, because it would be government competing against industry. I'm sick of that already. I say they'd have to be ready to cut loose the Orion team to compete fairly after at least two LEO crew options were on their feet.

NASA and ATK tested the rocket because they have a contract that says "test the rocket" and that contract is still valid and in force. That the contractor was fulfilling their obligation is not a surprise and should not be condemned. That NASA would like to get the data from the years of development they have put into this rocket is not irrational either. NASA is still learning and demonstrating propulsion technology regardless of the leadership void in Washington, D.C.

That NASA should cease and desist from all solid propulsion technology development just because you hate solids is irrational. NASA already had a plan and had expended resources. The static test sunk costs were largely realized by the time of the test. It would be nice, Keith, if you would try to be a little more rational in your posts. I used to think you were trying to put balance into discussions of space policy, but lately it has seemed you are fanatically determined to further a personal agenda against solids than presenting rational thought. I like liquids too- their sexy and super cool. But solids have their use, and a smart buyer of propulsion systems keeps it technical. It's not personal, it's business.

There have been some compelling comments here about the ATK test, but the best reason I've heard so far is that once you've built a huge SRB the only economical way to get rid of it, is to light it...

That made me laugh but in a sense it's true. It might have been more fun to have straped something to the end of it.

I don't hate solids. And I don't claim to be a rocket scientist. But I agree with Jim Muncy that these motors are expensive and limited. Here's the question: is it wise to design a future heavy lift booster that is heavily dependent upon what is basically 1970s technology-bringing it well into the 21st Century? Or design a launcher that is state-of-the-art, competitive and safer? Does proven flight experience outweigh something truly innovative and performs better? Would you want to put an advanced upper stage on top of a solid booster?

NASA is doing what they're supposed to here and they can't be faulted for that.

But there is still a very real possibility that this money is being spent for no real end.

This reflects a problem in Washington; that their plans are in continual flux and the debate is being dragged out.

Meanwhile, work must be done of questionable value because nobody knows if it'll wind up being used or not.

After all's said and done, money will have been wasted.

“It is the position of the Crew Survival Office that the use of SRB’s (large or small) in any crewed launch vehicle present booster catastrophic failure modes that make compliance with the HRR 8705.2 very unlikely due to the inability to successfully abort if those failures occur.”
www.nasa.gov/.../382364main_46%20%2020090802.6.CSO%20inline%20concerns.ppt -

Steve
Flometrics

Let's not make the good the enemy of the perfect. The race to the end of the fiscal year for Constellation contractors is understandable: show it can be done, and show Congress it can therefore be re-started if the new Congress understands the need for a space program.

Under the Administration's plan there will be no heavy lift at all until "2020 or 2030" (Bolden), meanwhile the Chinese heavy lift will launch by 2014 and go to the Moon by 2017. We would do better to have Constellation with its faults and SRBs than nothing at all.

The Coalition to Save Manned Space is working on a strategy to save the space program. Find out how you can help at:
http://SaveMannedSpace.com

is it wise to design a future heavy lift booster that is heavily dependent upon what is basically 1970s technology-bringing it well into the 21st Century?

Yes, it is absolutely brilliant!

Or design a launcher that is state-of-the-art, competitive and safer?

You can select any two of those three, and you can have a design we could build today. The remaining item will take longer.

Does proven flight experience outweigh something truly innovative and performs better?

In a heartbeat. not to mince words.

Would you want to put an advanced upper stage on top of a solid booster?

If it could be designed to withstand the ride, sure.

You learn by doing. If you're not doing you ain't learning. We haven't had a heavy lifter since the Saturn. If we were currently opertaing the Saturn X model, I'd agree its time for something new. But since we couldn't build a Saturn I B if we wanted to, I believe we should build someting that works and we have confidence it as far as cost and safety are concerned(as far as that goes when building rockets, it is rocket science after all). Operate it for ten or fifteen years, modify it as you go along. Then when you know what you're doing, build the next generation heavy lifter.

If you choose to wait until the next generation lifter is ready and skip the mundane step of just having something that works, you're going to be on the ground for a long, long time.

Just a thought

Since, (as has been pointed out before), you cannot substantially reduce the cost of using solid rockets, the whole exercise is truly a dead end. A shuttle based HLV was: our fondest dream in ‘88, but in 2010, it’s a little late.

Remember, it is not just the current launch cost estimates that count, but the logic that shows that there is no way to reduce solid costs. With raw, regional politics as powerful as it is, we may not be able to get rid of solids for decades. The bizarre spectacle of the Republican senator's supporting government over private enterprise just shows how contradictory the real world can be. I can just imagine if today’s Fedgov was unleashed 200 years ago, they would require all Mississippi river boats to be keelboats built in a certain senators district - in defiance of the new steamboats. One political tactic might be to point out to Congressmen from non-space industry regions that the money is being wasted on someone else’s district with little return for their own constituents. Eventually the government designed boosters will look sick due to their high cost, and the whole system will collapse.

We probably need to take a larger view by looking at (1) an ideal booster development situation, and (2) the real world and what can be accomplished in spite of it. This should always start with: what are the payloads and who are the customers who want to launch them. We should focus on the properties of the payloads as launched: size, density, shape, cost, purpose, number expected to be launched in a defined period. This could lead to support for private development of much cheaper launchers, and the minimum size and weight the payloads they can carry. Estimates of how much it would cost to assemble large vehicles from smaller pieces in orbit, considering the cost of 1 hour of an astronauts time in orbit, should be part of the decision equation. There are some vehicles, such as large re-entry vehicles, that would be very difficult to assemble in orbit, because of the heat shield or aeroshell.

The ideal HLV has a fully reusable flyback first stage that is preferably airbreathing. The next generation of HLV’s may or may not even be recoverable. An upper stage could be designed to work on several different boosters, but has to assume some minimum first stage diameter. Otherwise it would have some of the same problems as the Stick.

“Don't you want an American space program?” Yes, we want one that uses vehicles that are cheap enough to use so that we can actually do something real and permanent in space. No more flags and footprints!

Frank Sietzen: "Would you want to put an advanced upper stage on top of a solid booster?"

Absolutely. They're remarkably simple devices, they don't explode like liquid engines do, and they're the one and only rocket engine technology where we lead the Russians (e.g., RD-180's, NK-33's).

---John

BTW, I wouldn't suggest putting them inline with large liquid fuel tanks! I do believe von Braun warned against that way back when.

Fair disclosure here, I am a liquids guy to the core. I dislike solids for any number of reasons. I appreciate they are robust and storable which makes them ideal for weapons systems and airbags. They are not simple by any means. The mechanical complexity of the liquid system is traded for simplicity in the functional design but more complexity in barely understood physics. At this size probing that physics is a major challenge. So from that point of view I think these tests are worth doing. Those solids are unique and it is an excellent arrow to have in your technological quivver. Not so good for HSF but there are other applications. On this side of the pond we have been beating our head off a similar problem with the Vega launcher. Indeed at first blush Ariane 6 looks to be heading down that road too, unless sanity prevales.

Sorry Frank... Look at your calendar. It's still FY2010. Constellation is still the program of record.

"The ideal HLV has a fully reusable flyback first stage that is preferably airbreathing"

I don't think the aurbreathing part is feasible. If you look at the energy requirements to orbit, it's mostly kinetic energy (speed), not potential energy (altitude) - not that that matters to my new point, now that I think about it.

The thing is that you can't build up a lot of speed in the dense part of the atmosphere (where you have the oxidizer outside the vehicle) for two reasons: drag and heating. The energy losses through drag mean that a lot of the fuel you're burning is going just to make up for what you're losing in drag. And the heating is a pretty severe issue too - look at all the stuff the SR-71 had to do at 'merely' Mach 3 to deal with heat.

Which is why most rockets fly profiles that are straight up for a while - to get above that pesky atmosphere as fast as possible.

As to the reusable, that comes with its own penalties in complexity/etc, as we've found to our cost with the Shuttle...

Noel

"is it wise to design a future heavy lift booster that is heavily dependent upon what is basically 1970s technology-bringing it well into the 21st Century?"

But almost all of the boosters being built these days are basically old technology - even the J-2X has a lot of old technology in it (well, not the carbon bell). The only really new stuff I can think of are the advanced kero-lox engines.

Sure, new technology is being incorporated in the details (e.g. composite structural stuff), but that only provides an incremental improvement in performance, not a quantum jump.

Dreaming of some mythical quantum jump is nice, but if it were so easy (or feasible), someone would have done it by now...

Noel

"I wouldn't suggest putting them inline with large liquid fuel tanks! I do believe von Braun warned against that way back when."

I've heard reference to this a number of times. Can someone provide a citation? I'd like to study (and understand in detail) what his thinking was on this.

Noel

Ronin: If liquids are the answer (vs. solids), why not simply buy Russian engines (either RD-180's or NK-33's)? It would years to develop anything equivalent and billions of $$$.

---John

This is a non issue in my opinion. Constellation was a good plan with great destinations. The ARES-V was/is the way to go for both technical and economic reasons. The reality is Congress can't fund the effort the way it should be funding so they are basically extending the pay as you go concept. We can't afford the whole concept so we are giving ourselves options. ARES-V work done early will keep more the work force employed and it's ready availability make it much more likely that future lander or deep space vehicles will get produced, not to mention making large scale robotic missions more likely. America never should have strayed from the course. It apparently has finally been impressed upon the President how important a robust and directed Human Space Program is to the American populace.

Thanks Noel for a very useful and easy to understand explanation of why we use rockets instead of air breathing jets.

Re-using our current, tried and proven technology is always a good idea, especially during periods when we do not have the funding to develop something entirely new. We made a big mistake in throwing away all of the Apollo hardware and one big reason I supported the Constellation program. Just the idea that we can get 7.2 million pounds of thrust from two of these puppies is amazing, that is nearly the same as the old Saturn V or Shuttle during launch. That and the combination of the SSME's and you have a heavy lift booster with about 8.2 million pounds of thrust. Use new computer technology for controls and you have a very useful heavy lift vehicle. Expensive? Two of these doe not cost what we spent on a Saturn V booster stage in 2010 dollars.

Yep, definitely better if it had blown up, if that would have mooted some of the blather, ATK-swoonage and other foolishness on display here and in Congress.

What? It's not like that would have killed anyone, unlike what happens sometimes when big segmented solids are used to launch crewed ships.

If Congress wouldn't fund Ares V development, why should we believe that they will do so with an HLV that sure looks a lot like it?

Constellation had grandiose plans and destinations, but the fundamental problem was little of it was realistic from a schedule or budget standpoint. It was going to take a good bit longer and cost a good bit more than originally estimated - sounds familiar? Per the original schedule, NASA should be prepping to do major vehicle test flights early next year when in fact, most of the vehicle has yet to complete design for manufacture. The only reason the HLV (Ares V if it's chosen as such) even gets accelerated forward is due to Ares I getting cancelled with the cancellation of Constellation. The Constellation design workforce is different from the Shuttle operational workforce - different skill sets, etc., so in terms of saving jobs, even bringing forward Ares V is not going to help the picture much for those whose skills are not transferable. BTW, precursor robotic missions were cut to help fund Constellation, and in fact, with respect to the current FY2011 Authorization bills being considered by the House and Senate, the House zeros out Precursor robotic mission funding where as the Senate cuts the President's proposal for that area by 2/3rds, so those large scale robotic missions you mention are far LESS likely to occur under the plans being forth by Congress.
I don't believe the President had to be "impressed upon" for the value of manned space flight - after all, per the original plan ISS was to be de-orbited in 2015 whereas the Administration has recommended an extension of ISS till 2020, maintaining a continuous US manned space presence at least until we have capable US built man-rated vehicles AND HLVs (could be the same NASA vehicle or a NASA/Commercial mix) to go to ISS and beyond after the retirement of Shuttle, something that would have NOT happened under Constellation at the rate it was proceeding. Sure, the House and Senate bill proposals put unrealistic dates that they expect an HLV to be built and tell NASA how to build the darn thing. But as Mr. Frank Sietzen asks - why should we believe Congress will properly fund Ares V development, particularly to meet their aggressive schedule? "Pay as you go" means a busted schedule. It's Constellation Redux, where NASA will once again be burning cash to accelerate development, forced to cannibalize other programs to keep Ares V going, schedules will inevitably slip, costs will spiral and NASA is looking ugly in the long run.
The goal should be having a realistic, sustainable space program for the long-haul. It's about maintaining a healthy pace and building up a wealth of capabilities (robotics, in-space propellant transfer, etc) to soundly and economically expedite exploration of our universe, not myopically focusing on one aspect. NASA has crashed and burned on enough rushed "faster, better, cheaper" projects that it's perhaps time to try another approach the systematically builds up NASA's capability to do big projects successfully.

Operating cost dwarfs development cost. The D-IV and Falcon are both clean sheet designs, and they are processed with a tiny fraction of the workforce needed for Ares, because Ares needs the VAB, MLPs, crawlers, and an enormous cost in hazardous processing. Use of heritage designs only leads to heritage failures. There was some sense in a SDHLV as long as the Shuttle itself was flying, but to get rid of the Shuttle itself and keep using the hazardous and expensive-to-process SRBs and to keep maintaining LC-39 is absurd. The Crew Survival Office presentation on SRBs is an eye-opener. They must have been overruled by Griffin.

Frank, first of all, SLS is not Ares-V, it is much closer in heritage to STS: ET-sized tank diameter, SSME engines, 4-segment boosters, etc. I am sure you are familiar with the DIRECT proposal and the advantages that its proponents claim over Ares. SLS is DIRECT in all but name.

Second, we can expect Congress to fund SLS because that is what they fought for, in opposition against the President's proposal. It is their project, their baby. They will fund SLS unless NASA manages to screw that up too, which is my real worry.

Mark S.

Excellent point dogstar2. To sustain the program to fruition and actually build hardware, development costs are important, however containing/lowering operating costs are going to be critical to the success of any future NASA launch vehicle and indeed to the future of NASA space exploration. A hard look at architectures to lower operating cost to me is what is sorely missing in this whole "rush to build rockets" fever. This doesn't necessarily rule out SRB but it makes sure you only include them as part of your architecture because you've determined they're the most economical way to go for the mission you've selected.

But I have to ask why on Earth is NASA proceeding to invest time and money in testing boosters that may have no role in the future of human spaceflight.
==============================================
What?

Hey Frank,

I believe many of the Expendables are still using Solid Rocket motors.

As to Man Space Flight, a Solid has lots of weight but, it also has lots of specific weight-to-thrust gains to allow for lots of weight to be taken to LEO or almost LEO.

Space Shuttle Program had only one failure in over 100+ Shuttle flights and that was due to Mission Managers at the time to give a GO for launch during very frigit temperatures and against Design Engieering warnings.

Just because Space Shuttle program is almost over does not mean that you throw away all aspects of it totally and not consider it's technical merrits.

We have to stop and retrain ourselves in the USA from this Throw-away mentality.

Padrat

"definitely better if it had blown up ...
It's not like that would have killed anyone, unlike what happens sometimes when big segmented solids are used to launch crewed ships."

Historical accuract note: the solid in the Challenger disaster did not "blow[] up", it suffered a major leak at one of the inter-segment joints. (If you look at the video of the disaster, you'll notice both solids continuing to fly after the vehicle disintegrated.) Unluckily, that leak happened to be on the side of the booster close to the spacecraft, and it was the jet of high-temp gasses out of that leak that did the fatal damage to the vehicle.

Noel

"the combination of the SSME's and you have a heavy lift booster"

The thing about the SSME's is that they are very expensive, since they were designed to be re-used many times. If you're throwing them away on every flight, the J2-X really is a better option.

Noel