Augustine Says Committee Will Review Study, But It Is Just Another Piece Of Information
A study shows that abandoning the Ares I rocket development program and replacing it with a modified military Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) rocket wouldn’t ultimately save NASA any net funds, unless the United States isn’t going to the moon, Mars and beyond.
The Aerospace Corp. study shows development of the Ares V heavy lifter rocket would be predicated on development work already done in producing the Ares I rockets. If Ares I is abandoned now, that would mean far more development work and expense for the Ares V program.
Finally, abandoning Ares I would lengthen the gap when NASA can’t get even one astronaut off the ground from five years to seven years.
That study was presented to a committee that President Obama wants to review the NASA Constellation Program that is producing the next-generation U.S. spaceship system needed to replace the space shuttle fleet that retires next year.
For half a decade, until the first Ares I rocket in 2015 boosts an Orion space capsule to orbit, up to the International Space Station, NASA will be grounded, having to buy taxi rides for American astronauts from the Russians on Soyuz spaceships.
The panel, called the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, is headed by Norm Augustine, retired chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp. [LMT].
The committee will read the Aerospace Corp. report, but it won’t dictate the final findings of the committee, Augustine said in an interview with Space & Missile Defense Report.
“I think it’s just one more of the options that we’re going to look at,” Augustine said. “I think it’s interesting enough we ought to look at it, but I wouldn’t give it any — it’s just too early for me to have much of an opinion, or for us [on the committee] to have an opinion.”
We asked whether there will be any fixed weighting system for the committee to add up the pros and cons of Ares I versus the EELV, and come to a clear conclusion about which is better for NASA.
“It’s not an equation” that will determine the committee’s verdict, he said. Rather, it will come down to a judgment call by committee members, he explained, adding, “It’s a disciplined way to be sure you’ve considered everything … It comes down to judgment.”
In coming months, the panel will consider whether the Ares I development should proceed to completion, after years of development work already done, or whether NASA should drop the Ares I program and instead buy EELVs (such as a Delta IV) from United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Lockheed and The Boeing Co. [BA].
Augustine already has said the committee won’t consider the money already spent in developing Ares I, but the panel will consider possible cost savings in the future of the rocket development effort.
In the Constellation Program, Lockheed is developing the Orion space capsule.
Different segments of the Ares I rocket are being developed by Boeing, Alliant Techsystems Inc. [ATK], and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, a unit of United Technologies Corp. [UTX].
Also in the Constellation Program will be development of the Ares V heavy lifter and the Altair lunar lander.
Stuck In Low Earth Orbit?
Ares V and the lander would be needed to return U.S. astronauts to the moon by 2020.
However, the Augustine committee also will consider whether the United States should return to the moon. If the answer is no, then Ares V and Altair might not be needed, if the United States is only going to low Earth orbit, to the space station.
Such a decision would mean abandoning the U.S. Vision for Space Exploration, which calls for manned missions to the moon, Mars and beyond. In that case, if NASA is to remain permanently stuck in low Earth orbit, then switching to the EELV would provide genuine savings in costs, compared to continuing to develop Ares I.
If the United States doesn’t return to the moon, that would leave lunar missions to China, India and others.
One of the selling points for those advocating a shift to the EELV is that it would be cheaper, and the Aerospace Corp. study confirms that, but cautions that the savings exist only until one comes to the point of developing the huge Ares V rocket that the Constellation Program envisions would save money by copying some technology from Ares I.
Last year, then-NASA Administrator Mike Griffin pointed out in strong terms that the EELV couldn’t do all that Ares I and Ares V could do. He was speaking at the time with an Obama transition team aide, Lori Garver, who asked whether money could be saved by abandoning Ares I and using EELVs instead. Obama recently nominated Garver to be deputy NASA administrator. She is a former NASA associate administrator.
In a daylong hearing in Washington, D.C., the Augustine committee heard a pitch for the EELV from Michael C. Gass, president and CEO of United Launch Alliance (ULA). (The EELV actually is two rockets, the Atlas V that is a Lockheed design, and the Delta IV with a Boeing design.)
The EELV would be safe, affordable, sustainable and executable, Gass said, adding that the Delta IV heavy lifter rocket would provide safe, low-cost transport to orbit.
Gass said the Delta IV would have a 20 percent performance margin.
Also, he said, the Atlas or Delta rockets could provide crew transport to the station by 2013, knocking two years off the space flight gap.
Further evolution of the EELV systems and components could provide options and flexibility for exploration to the moon and beyond, ready for missions in 2016, he said. Gass didn’t specify just what “evolution” of the military rockets would be required, or how much that might cost in time and dollars.
He cited the combined Boeing and Lockheed experience of 50 years and 1,300 launches, including work by companies that Boeing and Lockheed took over.
While critics of the EELV note it isn’t human-rated, Gass said ULA has experience in human-rating systems.
He also displayed a map of the United States, showing which states and cities would have operations if the EELV is used and Ares I is dropped. While he didn’t mention it, congressional support for any acquisition program often relates to how many congressional districts will gain jobs from the program.
Ares I: A Safe Vehicle
But NASA officials provided a separate briefing on the Constellation Program, including Ares I.
Doug Cooke, associate NASA administrator for exploration, pointed to the enormous capability of the Ares I and Ares V. Ares I would have a 22 percent lift margin for missions to the space station, and 18 percent for lunar missions.
He also knocked down some allegations from critics opposed to Ares I.
There is no problem with the Ares rockets possibly hitting the launch tower if a mild southerly wind were to strike at the instant of liftoff, he said. Ares would just steer away from the tower.
Another problem, with thrust oscillation vibrations possibly being transmitted to the crew, has been resolved by using systems to thwart transmission of the vibration, he said.
On the positive side, a major point, he said, is that Ares I would be safe, with better than 10 times less the ascent risk of the space shuttle. And it would be safer than a human-rated EELV. Since shuttles began flying in the early 1980s, two — Challenger and Columbia — have been lost in accidents, and each time the crew of seven was lost as well.
While Orion would land in water, as did the Apollo space capsules decades ago, the Orion could survive 24 hours in the water.
To initial operational capability in 2015, the next-generation system could be completed for $35 billion, at a 65 percent confidence level, Cooke said. And $9 billion more gets you to the lunar systems level.
He drew questions from the committee on how certain he is on those calculations.
The panel also heard, by intercontinental hookups, from Jean-Jaques Dordain, director general of the European Space Agency, and from Anatoly Perminov, head of the Russian Federal Space Agency, discussing how best to coordinate and cooperate on multinational efforts.
As well, the committee heard comments from audience members.