- \n
- Augustine Forum Section<\/li>\n
- L2 Extension Section<\/li>\n
- L2 Ares\/HLV\/Orion Sections<\/li>\n
- Click here to Join L2<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
A 2012 extension remains viable via the part built tanks (ET-139\/ET-140), added to the use of ET-122 on STS-135 and Soyuz LON (Launch On Need) support for the final mission, yet the clock is well and truly ticking on that viability.<\/p>\n
The aforementioned part built tanks are not relevant to the lead times of up to three years, which some managers continue to cite. Such timelines have originated from managers at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), who are closely tied to Ares, whereas managers at the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) cite SMRT documentation that shows no ET machinery has been scrapped, with lead times around half of that stated by MSFC.<\/p>\n
Protecting shuttle assets \u2013 at least for the current manifest that is likely to include the addition of STS-135 \u2013 was noted by SSP (Space Shuttle Program) manager John Shannon, during his end of year address to his workforce.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have all worked extremely hard this last year, and we face a challenging year ahead of us. Thanks to the Team for all of its effort this past year. We overcame a great deal of adversity and performed in an outstanding manner,\u201d noted Mr Shannon on the Shuttle Stand-up\/Integration report (L2).<\/p>\n
Space Technology
<\/path>Aerospace industry analysis <\/path>Space Shuttle <\/path>\n (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});<\/p>\n
\u201cThere will be more challenges in the coming year, both from a technical and a human capital standpoint. We have to maintain our focus. There is a great deal of discussion going on concerning what the future will entail, but we must be sure that we do not get distracted from the mission at hand. The work ahead is very clear cut.<\/p>\n
\u201c(I have) been assured by all of NASA\u2019s Senior Management that the changes being discussed are prefaced by clear statements that any impacts to Shuttle will not be allowed. The SSP will have all the resources needed to complete the mission. There will not be any constraints or unsafe conditions applied, nor any checks and balances lost, through any of the changes being discussed.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere will be no idea where SSP will be from a budget-standpoint until the February timeframe. As information comes out during the coming months, we must remain focused. If we do not execute properly over the next year, there will be no future for us. We must do it right. We\u2019ll see everybody next year!\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"A4\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/01\/A4.jpg\" "\\"A4\\"")
Only a 2012 extension will be cited in an upcoming bill that is being drawn up by politicians \u2013 full details of which are currently embargoed \u2013 who are concerned with both the logistical support of the International Space Station (ISS) in the event of an extension of the Station to 2020, and the closing of the \u201cgap\u201d.<\/p>\nAlso playing a factor is increased uncertainty surrounding the timelines of the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts, with SpaceX rumored to be struggling with the development of their Falcon 9 launch vehicle, especially with the vehicle\u2019s software.<\/p>\n
Government reports recently noted the concern that the 100 billion dollar Station may never be fully utilized, adding fuel to the requirement of extending shuttle \u2013 given it is the only vehicle that has large-scale upmass, and downmass \u2013 capability.<\/p>\n
For recent extension specific articles, click here: http:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/tag\/extension\/
\nReference: Previous *main* Shuttle Extension articles by NASASpaceflight.com:
\nhttp:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/2009\/12\/extension-no-closer-one-heck-of-a-year-for-shuttle\/
\nhttp:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/2009\/09\/ssp-fight-back-asap-augustine-claim-risk\/
\nhttp:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/2009\/07\/major-shuttle-and-iss-extension-drive-augustine-commission\/
\nhttp:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/2009\/05\/nasa-present-two-shuttle-extension-options-to-lawmakers\/
\nhttp:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/2009\/03\/aresorion-slipping-18-months-shuttle-extension-upper-hand\/
\nhttp:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/2009\/02\/extra-nasa-funds-initial-step-towards-gap-reduction\/
\nhttp:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/2008\/09\/senate-pass-nasa-bill-for-extra-funding\/
\nhttp:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/2008\/10\/shuttle-extension-white-paper\/
\nhttp:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/2008\/09\/nasas-dream-scenario-of-a-13-flight-extension-for-shuttle\/<\/p>\nShuttle Derived Heavy Lift:<\/p>\n
![\"A2\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/01\/A2.jpg\" "\\"A2\\"")
An extension of the shuttle program \u2013 as stated by the Augustine Commission \u2013 would only be viable if the follow-on vehicle is a true Shuttle Derived (SD) LV. Two examples were presented to the Augustine Commission, one which is based on a side-mount option \u2013 called the SD HLLV (Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle) \u2013 and another called the Jupiter LV.<\/p>\nThe SD HLLV \u2013 or HLV for short \u2013 has received a large amount of attention from the SSP, who have been tasked with the bulk of the evaluations. Those evaluations have resulted in meetings with the Langley Research Center (LaRC) and NASA HQ in Washington, DC \u2013 ahead of key \u201cface-to-face\u201d meetings with MSFC.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe team is working action items in preparation for Face-to-Face Meeting at MSFC. The team is \u2018GREEN\u2019 on performance ground rules for understanding which missions HLV is best suited to support. Are coming to terms with how to integrate avionics and software between Block I and Block II,\u201d noted one of several notes on the Stand-up reports (L2), with this update dating at the end of November.<\/p>\n
\u201cMr. Shannon added that MSFC\u2019s team met with the stakeholders to review progress to date. The group is investigating various designs and technology needs\/schedules and comparing this to performance trades, so that when the mission is defined, we will be able to understand how this will affect the vehicle selection.<\/p>\n
\u201cOne of the key issues is to be able to perform an accurate cost assessment on these options. We will be informed of what the team has determined and understand what architectures apply to what missions. Assessment of the appropriate path forward will then go through the early part of 2010.\u201d<\/p>\n
The meetings with the MSFC team related to the study requested by new NASA administrator Charlie Bolden, who created a \u201cSpecial Team\u201d to evaluate all the Heavy Lift alternatives \u2013 which was commented on in early December notes on the Stand-up report.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe MSFC team put together a suite of launch vehicles that the HLV team will assess, made up of Shuttle derived, inline, and Ares V type concepts. (MSFC) put together a suite of missions that the team will evaluate these launch vehicles for. Are still negotiating for some of the ground rules planned for the costing, performance, and so forth.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe actions that came out of that meeting were to better identify what the real drivers are to start up production and build new hardware, better define the figures of merit with the real purpose of what we are doing, and do a comparison between the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV) studies done with the Program of record.\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"A5\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/01\/A5.jpg\" "\\"A5\\"")
The Program Of Record (POR) is Ares I and Ares V, with both vehicles closely tied at the hip. While Ares I is doubtful to survive past the early part of 2010, Ares V may yet survive \u2013 by name at least \u2013 as sources note an \u201cAres V Classic\u201d has been cited numerous times as one of the vehicles being discussed, a vehicle that appears to be akin to a \u201cJupiter-241 Stretched Heavy\u201d (see image left) \u2013 which would be the Block II version of such a \u201cClassic\u201d vehicle.<\/p>\nThe Block I version would have the appearance and configuration of the \u201cJupiter-244 RL-10\u201d, although no direct references \u2013 no pun intended \u2013 have been made by name on documentation, although \u201cdifferent\u201d vehicle options, other than the HLV, have been cited numerous times in December updates.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe will get the outbrief from MSFC\u2019s team that is looking at the different launch vehicle options, some architectural options,\u201d added a Stand-up note in early December. \u201cThere will be no decisions out of that. It is really more to scope what different options would cost, what schedules would be required.<\/p>\n
\u201cOnce we get some budget information and some direction from the White House, we will be able to take all the data that the team has put together, see where we are, and pull together a plan in short order. This is laying the groundwork for future decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n
As far as SSP are concerned, the sidemount HLV continues to be the focus of their evaluations, with the last update of the year referencing work on the departure stage and the payload carrier.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe focus will be on a new concept for the departure stage and how best to integrate the RL10s (engines). Had a great review with Langley on some configuration changes for the payload carriers, to be considered for the next design cycle. There is a Face-to-Face to baseline the configuration to be used for the design cycle.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, another Heavy Lift vehicle came out of the blue in December, via an internal 65 page presentation on NASA\u2019s overview (available on L2) of what it believes can be accomplished via the Flexible Path options, per Augustine Commission.<\/p>\n
While the presentation is far-reaching on various mission outlines \u2013 including missions to Near Earth Objects (NEOs), GEO Space Telescopes, and manned missions to Mars (all of which will be reported in an upcoming article) \u2013 a monster 200 metric ton human rated \u201cExploration Class\u201d launch vehicle is referenced several times.<\/p>\n
![\"A3\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/01\/A3.jpg\" "\\"A3\\"")
\u201cExploration-Class Rocket: A human-rated system with LEO throw-mass on the order of 200 mt, designed purposely for extremely high reliability and minimum operations cost, rather than being sized directly by an architecture that may change later,\u201d noted the presentation. \u201c200 mt, sized by \u2018knee in the curve\u2019 of LV economics. Not driven by the architecture de jour.\u201d<\/p>\nNo specific designs are included in the presentation, with a Saturn V schematic shown next to the 200mt references. However, such a vehicle would likely to be a three stage Ares V type heavy lifter. How such a massive vehicle could be afforded is questionable.<\/p>\n
For the interim, all eyes remain on the President, who \u2013 it is hoped \u2013 will show his willingness to help NASA achieve its goals via support for an increased budget.<\/p>\n
L2 members<\/em><\/em>: Documentation \u2013 from which the above article has quoted snippets \u2013 is available in full in the related L2 sections, now over 4000 gbs in size<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
2010 will mark a number of key decisions for NASA, not least the potential switch from the current Ares I\/V architecture to an alternative mix of commerical crew launch \u2013 accompanied by a new heavy lift workhorse. A decision is expected to be announced early in the new year by President Obama, although at least […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":29515,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[9198,9157,9034],"class_list":["post-40901","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-ares","tag-extension","tag-hlv"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40901"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=40901"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40901\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/29515"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40901"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40901"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40901"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}