News NASA's Future: The News and Updates Thread

[orb]

NASA:

• MEDIA ADVISORY : M12-072 - NASA'S Top Scientist and Technologist Discuss What's Next for NASA:

  April 16, 2012
  
  WASHINGTON -- NASA Chief Scientist Waleed Abdalati and Chief Technologist Mason Peck will hold a teleconference on Wednesday, April 18, at 4 p.m. EDT to brief media representatives on developments for NASA's future.
  
  {...}

  
  
• NASA's Future is Here Today:

  04.17.12
  
  When the space shuttle program ended in 2011, NASA had undertaken a wide variety of activities to continue America's legacy in human spaceflight. Working with its international and commercial partners, NASA is continuing to operate the International Space Station and develop the next vehicles that will take humans into space. Here are a few things that have happened just recently:
  
  
  

  • Following Monday's Flight Readiness Review, the second SpaceX demonstration launch for NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program is scheduled for 12:22 p.m. EDT on Monday, April 30. The primary objectives for the flight include a flyby of the ISS and, once cleared, docking. Meanwhile, NASA and SpaceX workers continue to prepare the Dragon capsule for its launch.
    
    
  • The crew of the ISS conducted experiments into crystal growth and prepared for the arrival of the Dragon vehicle. For a full rundown, watch the most recent ISS Update.
    
    
  • The J-2X engine, which will power the upper stage of NASA's Space Launch System, is undergoing a series of tests at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.
    
    
  • NASA and Orbital Science Corp. have taken the commercial Antares rocket to the pad at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility.
    
    
  • Today NASA will conduct a second test of the Orion crew capsule's parachute system, building on the successful test last February.

  
  {...}

 

[Unstung]

Discovery News: "NASA Wants YOU to Design its 2018 Mars Mission" and "Tumbleweed Rovers Could Explore Mars" (Video)

 

[orb]

SPACE.com: Boosting NASA's Budget Will Help Fix Economy: Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[orb]

Aviation Week: Saturn V To Mars?:

Among the kerosene-fueled rocket engines NASA is considering as a powerplant for its planned heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS) is the venerable F-1 engine that took 12 men to the Moon.

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, which owns rights to the massive engines built by its predecessor Rocketdyne, proposed it as an option to companies that have submitted risk reduction proposals to the U.S. space agency for a strap-on SLS booster.

The advanced booster would crank the lift capacity of the deep-space SLS up to at least 130 metric tons, from the targeted 70 metric tons after its first scheduled flights in 2017 and 2021. It's early days yet, to say the least, but the engine-maker had interest in the big old enginen from some of the launch vehicle companies that submitted proposals, so it's on the table for the time being.

Rocketdyne built F-1 and F-1A variants of the first stage engine for the Saturn V Moon rocket, at 1.5 and 1.8 million pounds thrust, respectively. PWR has several F-1 turbopumps in stock, and the five flight engines built for the cancelled Apollo 18 mission are still around.

NASA will decide this summer what design options for the advanced booster that it wants to pursue, and the F-1 has some advantages. It's still the most powerful rocket engine ever built, and Rocketdyne engineers in the 1960s solved issues like combustion stability that would cost a fortune to recreate today.

{...}

 

[orb]

Here we go again...

Parabolic Arc: NASA Budget: New Year, Same Old Senate (and House):

The U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and related agencies (CJS) has finished marking up the FY 2013 budget. Looks like much of the same, with money ladled on massively expensive programs and a $305 million reduction in the President’s request for commercial crew: [Update: The House has weighed in with its own budget, which does the same thing in a more extreme fashion {...}

Committee on Appropriations: FY13 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Bill (PDF)

Space News: Garver: Funding Cut Would Only Delay Commercial Crew Effort

Florida Today: Spending panels recommend funds for Commercial Crew program​

Something different:

Aviation Week: SLS Main Stage Will Have Four Engines​

 

[anemazoso]

My head is going to explode! These morons in congress want to take a large percentage of funding away from the critial element of the near future to give it to something that is a complete waste of money..... Government paper rockets (SLS) wont do much to inspire my children into STEM or furthur the goal of space exploration. There is no hope for these people ever getting it right. They have turned me into a grumpy cinic. Boo!

 

[N_Molson]

Spaceflight Now

[FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA, SANS-SERIF][SIZE=+2]Rocket companies hope to repurpose Saturn 5 engines[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA, SANS-SERIF][SIZE=-2]BY STEPHEN CLARK
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: April 18, 2012[/SIZE][/FONT]

WASHINGTON -- Dynetics and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne announced Wednesday they are teaming up to resurrect the Saturn 5 rocket's mighty F-1 engine to power NASA's planned heavy-lift launch vehicle, saying the Apollo-era engine will offer significantly more performance than solid-fueled boosters currently under development.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-2]Artist's concept of the Space Launch System with boosters powered by F-1 engines. Credit: Dynetics Inc.[/SIZE][/FONT]

"The ability to come back and offer NASA a resurrection of probably one of the most venerated successful engines ever, the F-1, is very neat," said Steve Cook, director of space technologies at Dynetics Inc. "The cool factor on this is very high."

NASA plans to award $200 million to multiple companies later this year for 30 months of design and risk reduction work on advanced booster concepts for the agency's Space Launch System, a powerful heavy-lifting rocket designed to dispatch astronaut crews to deep space destinations, including asteroids, Mars, and the moon.

The 30-month performance period is expected to begin Oct. 1 and run through early 2015. The first two flights of the Space Launch System will be boosted off the launch pad by five-segment solid rocket motors built by ATK and derived from the space shuttle program.

NASA hopes a bigger booster will be ready by the third SLS flight in the early 2020s.

Dynetics of Huntsville, Ala., is leading the contractor team proposing the F-1 engine design. Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne is the bid's propulsion partner and engine builder.

Cook, NASA's former manager of the scrapped Ares rocket program, said each of the two Dynetics boosters on an SLS mission would be propelled by a pair of kerosene-fueled F-1 engines.

"Each of those engines can get up to 1.8 million pounds of thrust," Cook said in an interview Wednesday. "This booster is a very simple, very standard booster. It's 18 feet in diameter. It uses the same attach points as the current five-segment solid rocket booster."

Pratt & Whitney is the prime contractor for the Space Launch System's core propulsion system, initially comprised of up to four hydrogen-fueled RS-25D/E engines. The cryogenic upper stage's J-2X engine, another redesigned engine from the Apollo moon program, is under development by NASA and Pratt & Whitney for SLS flights beginning in the 2020s.

The first two SLS missions, scheduled for 2017 and 2021, will be powered by an interim cryogenic upper stage, a four-engine core, and twin five-segment solid rocket boosters. The 2021 mission, planned to loop around the moon, will be the mammoth rocket's first crewed launch.

The earliest version of the Space Launch System will stand 30 stories tall and lift at least 70 metric tons, or 154,000 pounds, into low Earth orbit.
Subsequent long-duration missions to further destinations, such as asteroids or Mars, will require a more robust version of the Space Launch System using the J-2X engine and advanced boosters.

Along with the Dynetics and Pratt & Whitney team, ATK and other industrial contractors also submitted proposals for the advanced booster risk reduction awards.

"We're essentially flying out assets we have while we try to evolve to a more affordable and capable booster for the future," said Todd May, NASA's Space Launch System program manager, in an interview in February.
NASA plans a design and development contract for the advanced booster after the risk reduction phase ends in 2015.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-2]A Saturn 5 first stage with five F-1 engines inside the Vehicle Assembly Building. Credit: NASA[/SIZE][/FONT]

Cook said the F-1 engine-powered advanced booster will provide about 20 metric tons, or 44,000 pounds, more lift capacity into low Earth orbit over the heavy-lift launcher's baseline solid rocket boosters.

"We offer a domestic booster design that takes advantage of the flight-proven Apollo-Saturn F-1, still the most powerful U.S. liquid rocket engine ever flown," said Ron Ramos, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne's vice president for exploration and missile defense. "PWR is the only company to have returned a Saturn-era engine, the J-2X, to production. We bring unique lessons to the advanced booster cost and performance trades."

Five F-1 engines flew on the first stage of each Saturn 5 rocket's upper stage. The Saturn 5 flew 13 times, launching astronauts to the moon and lofting NASA's Skylab space station into Earth orbit.

"That makes it one of the most reliable engines ever," Cook said. "You don't want to tinker with a design that you know works and has been successful."

Cook said the F-1 engine activities planned for the next 30 months, assuming Dynetics wins an award from NASA, include full-scale systems demonstrations and some hotfire testing.

The amount of progress depends on the level of funding provided by NASA, Cook said, adding the contractor team is already refurbishing some equipment with private capital.

"The risks associated with that [engine] were retired 40 years ago," Cook said. "What that allowed us to do was to focus our modifications and our changes around manufacturability, affordability and reliability. You take that engine and incorporate the lessons learned over the last 40 years of human, commercial and [military] spaceflight in propulsion systems, we think we can bring a very affordable package to the game. Largely, the design we're bringing is very similar or the same, and we've focused on manufacturability, bringing new processes and techniques that have been proven out."

"Cost wasn't a factor in the '60s," Cook said. "Cost is a huge factor today."


Sidenote : look how they are beginning to introduce the orange foam :lol:

 

[Pipcard]

It's a [ame="http://orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=4527"]Jarvis-M[/ame]!

 

[FADEC]

Bringing back the old technology confirms my opinion: NASA is on a wrong path since the early 1970s, in terms of human space exploration.

 

[N_Molson]

Well, I hope to see it fly, it will certainly be a curiosity !

 

[T.Neo]

Interesting that Dynetics is involved, it's the same company doing the LV-aircraft integration system for Stratolaunch.

I also find it highly ironic that Steve Cook, who was once in a highly supportive position of the Ares vehicles, is now working for a company offering a competitor to the 5-segment boosters that were a critical component of those vehicles.

It always seemed as if reviving the F-1 was a poor choice, that the production line was scrapped decades ago, and it'd take several years and billions of dollars to re-establish it and modernise the engine. Perhaps it's easier than some people thought.

Who's willing to bet that if we see an F-1 hotfire in the next 30 months, it'll be a stock F-1 from the 60s, rather than a newly manufactured engine?

 

[FADEC]

I also find it highly ironic that Steve Cook, who was once in a highly supportive position of the Ares vehicles, is now working for a company offering a competitor to the 5-segment boosters that were a critical component of those vehicles.

It's also interesting that he calls the F-1 engine one of the most reliable ones. Okay, it was not the F-1 but the J-2 which failed several times during only 13 launches of the Saturn 5. But that's what makes me sceptical whether the Saturn 5 or parts of it was the most reliable stuff ever flown. 13 launches is not really much. I would say that the Apollo program was accompanied by a lot of luck beside smart engineering. If flown as much as the Shuttle for example, we might have seen more disasters than we have seen during the STS era.

Anyway I also think that reviving the F-1 is a poor choice, as much awesome as the Saturn 5 was. For future space exploration we should be more innovative. Especially if we want to fly to Mars. Reviving old stuff is a step backwards if you ask me.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

It always seemed as if reviving the F-1 was a poor choice, that the production line was scrapped decades ago, and it'd take several years and billions of dollars to re-establish it and modernise the engine. Perhaps it's easier than some people thought.

Who's willing to bet that if we see an F-1 hotfire in the next 30 months, it'll be a stock F-1 from the 60s, rather than a newly manufactured engine?

No bet. They have so many problems with those engines, compared to todays specs for safety. They'll have to basically start from scratch. No brazed-tube chamber, for starters. New materials, new processes for manufacturing, etc. In short, as the J-2 is to the J-2X, the F-1 is to whatever they produce. Same in name, propellants, and that's about it.

 

[RGClark]

[FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA, SANS-SERIF]Rocket companies hope to repurpose Saturn 5 engines[/FONT]

[FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA, SANS-SERIF]BY STEPHEN CLARK
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: April 18, 2012[/FONT]

WASHINGTON -- Dynetics and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne announced Wednesday they are teaming up to resurrect the Saturn 5 rocket's mighty F-1 engine to power NASA's planned heavy-lift launch vehicle, saying the Apollo-era engine will offer significantly more performance than solid-fueled boosters currently under development.

On a nostalgia basis only this plan has an appeal, but probably you can get better performance using the already existing (russian) RD-171. Its thrust is only slightly less but its vacuum Isp is much better at 337 s compared to 304 s for the F-1.

My ideal answer though would be a modified SSME(!). Several engines, it has been shown, can be modified to run on different propellants. Some studies from the 70's concluded the SSME could be modified to be hydrocarbon fueled:

Tripropellant engine study.
Wheeler, D. B.; Kirby, F. M.
NASA-CR-150808; RI/RD78-215
"SUMMARY.
"The results of these studies have shown that the conversion of an SSME engine to a high chamber pressure, dual-mode fuel engine will require major modifications to the hardware and/or the addition of a significant number of new engine cowponents.
However, the study has shown numerous possibilities for the use of SSME
hardware derivatives in a single-mode LOX/hydrocaxbon engines. It was also shown that a reduced chamber pressure version of a staged combustion SSME is operationally feasible using the existing fuel-rich preburners and main chamber injectors. Certain turbomachinery modifications or additions are required for a total low chamber pressure ( 2300 psia) engine system. This study also has shown that the engine system concepts applicable to the dual-mode systems are somewhat narrowed since the operational constraints of two systems must be considered."
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19780024238 [full text, 145 pages]


Bob Clark

 

[MaverickSawyer]

The LR-87 engines used by the Titan family could run on LOX/RP-1, hypergolic, and LOX/LH2. Sadly, the tooling (and the people who designed it) are no longer available.

 

[N_Molson]

Tripropellant engine study.

Mmhyeah... But we all know the answer to make significant progresses in terms of ISP... And that isn't a new tech either. Of course it has some inconveniences, I guess that a lot of countries would be reluctant to be under the launch trajectory... Now if someone finds a way to get the advantages without using radioactive materials, he's welcome.

Also remember that the more engines you add, the higher is the probability of a failure. That's one of the problems with a "full-SSME" approach (the SSME having a much much lower thrust than the F-1). So I would go for the more powerful RS-68 in that case. Which gives derivatives of the Delta4-H...

 

[T.Neo]

It's also interesting that he calls the F-1 engine one of the most reliable ones.

Neglecting the comparison between the F-1 and other liquid engines for a second, Ares practically rode on the safety benefits of solid fuel rockets. Now Mr Cook seems to be advocating a liquid fuel engine as opposed to a solid booster...

No brazed-tube chamber, for starters.

What's wrong with the brazed-tube chamber? I mean, it may be less safe and more expensive than the alternate options, but it seems to have served fairly well for decades in the RS-27, earlier SSMEs, RL-10 variants, etc (or am I missing something and the Russian-style chamber construction methods made their way to the US several decades earlier?).

New materials, new processes for manufacturing, etc. In short, as the J-2 is to the J-2X, the F-1 is to whatever they produce. Same in name, propellants, and that's about it.

Yeah, in other words an entirely new engine, with all the associated development costs. How many billions has the J-2X cost up till now?

At these kind of billion+ prices, doesn't it make more sense to build a more modernised engine with higher performance? Perhaps something that could be integrated to other launchers (like to the Atlas V, eliminating the need for an overseas RD-180 engine).

My ideal answer though would be a modified SSME(!). Several engines, it has been shown, can be modified to run on different propellants. Some studies from the 70's concluded the SSME could be modified to be hydrocarbon fueled:

I don't even want to think about the difficulty modifications you'd have to perform to the SSME to turn it into a true tripropellant engine. Perhaps a better idea would be to modify it with a thrust augmented nozzle, but then you get into other problems like how to pressurise the TAN propellants, etc. And how PWR would get hold of Aerojet's TAN patent...

The LR-87 engines used by the Titan family could run on LOX/RP-1, hypergolic, and LOX/LH2. Sadly, the tooling (and the people who designed it) are no longer available.

Not all at the same time though. The kerolox, hypergolic and hydrolox engines were all built specifically for that certain propellant combination.

Mmhyeah... But we all know the answer to make significant progresses in terms of ISP... And that isn't a new tech either. Of course it has some inconveniences, I guess that a lot of countries would be reluctant to be under the launch trajectory... Now if someone finds a way to get the advantages without using radioactive materials, he's welcome.

Nuclear rocketry would be great, if only it wasn't for the nuclear bit.

Also remember that the more engines you add, the higher is the probability of a failure. That's one of the problems with a "full-SSME" approach (the SSME having a much much lower thrust than the F-1). So I would go for the more powerful RS-68 in that case. Which gives derivatives of the Delta4-H...

It also depends on other things, like the type of engine, and how much redundancy you can gain, heightening safety in case of an engine-out.

Frankly if you're going for RS-68, why not make it all RS-68 and remove the SSME completely? While you're doing that, why don't you develop a proper kerolox first stage engine, and revamp Saturn? It's a slippery slope that starts to deviate from the SLS design quite fast. I suppose for the booster role kerolox is preferable in the first place though.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

What's wrong with the brazed-tube chamber? I mean, it may be less safe and more expensive than the alternate options, but it seems to have served fairly well for decades in the RS-27, earlier SSMEs, RL-10 variants, etc (or am I missing something and the Russian-style chamber construction methods made their way to the US several decades earlier?).

Well, I've seen the work being done on the Orion OME. It's a three-part chamber wall. Very slick design, but also very tricky to braze. It's faster than the tube-wall design, and it's very well understood and widely used. Why not use it?

Yeah, in other words an entirely new engine, with all the associated development costs. How many billions has the J-2X cost up till now?

At these kind of billion+ prices, doesn't it make more sense to build a more modernised engine with higher performance? Perhaps something that could be integrated to other launchers (like to the Atlas V, eliminating the need for an overseas RD-180 engine).

Believe me, there is work being done on an alternative to the RD-180. No one in the industry likes the fact that it's a Russian engine on an American booster, and you need the Russians permission to fly...

 

[N_Molson]

Nuclear rocketry would be great, if only it wasn't for the nuclear bit.

It also depends on other things, like the type of engine, and how much redundancy you can gain, heightening safety in case of an engine-out.

Frankly if you're going for RS-68, why not make it all RS-68 and remove the SSME completely? While you're doing that, why don't you develop a proper kerolox first stage engine, and revamp Saturn? It's a slippery slope that starts to deviate from the SLS design quite fast. I suppose for the booster role kerolox is preferable in the first place though.

Responded here.

 

[T.Neo]

It's faster than the tube-wall design, and it's very well understood and widely used. Why not use it?

The logic behind keeping the tube wall design would be to save the time and money needed to develop a 'brazed jacket' chamber wall for that engine. I suppose there's a trade-off point where you save money by spending that money, because the recurring cost would be lower.

Don't get me wrong; I'm all for the modern chamber wall/nozzle construction technique(s).