Dr. Holdren's Good, the Bad, & the Ugly Interview on Climate Change, Space Travel, and Energy

Scientific American

Exit Interview: Presidential Science Advisor John Holdren

https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/exit-interview-presidential-science-advisor-john-holdren/

NASA's Next Crew Launch Vehicle?

by Marcel F. Williams

As the the President, Congress, NASA, and private industry weigh in on what NASA's next crew launch vehicles should be, here is a brief evaluation of the various viable options.

Shuttle derived core vehicle (SD-CV) with ACES 41 Service Module (SM) upper stage

ACES 41: Credit ULA (United Launch Alliance)

Launch Reliability: A two stage to orbit launch vehicle with engine out capability in both stages. Combined with a launch abort system for the CM (Command Module), this would be a safer manned launch vehicle than the Ares I and could be the safest manned launched vehicle ever developed.

Environmental Impact: carbon neutral liquid hydrogen/oxygen fuel that's easy to derive from carbon neutral resources (nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.) via the electrolysis of water.

Commercial Viability: With a probable payload capacity of 30 tonnes plus, the this vehicle should be capable of easily delivering an Orion capsule, Boeings CST-100 capsule, or a Dream Chaser space plane easily into orbit plus at least 10 to 20 tonnes of liquid hydrogen and oxygen fuel to LEO orbiting fuel depots for manned beyond LEO missions within cis-Lunar space. Hydrogen and oxygen can also be used as backup electric power aboard a space station using fuel cells with water as a valuable by product. Oxygen, of course, could be used to supply air to a space station.

Shuttle derived core vehicle (SD-CV) with stretched hypergolic Service Module (SM) upper stage

Launch Reliability: A two stage to orbit vehicle with no engine out capability in the upper hypergolic stage. This makes this an inherently less reliable two stage spacecraft than the SD-CV/ ACES 41 SM but still more reliable than an Ares I.

Environmental Impact: carbon neutral liquid hydrogen/oxygen fuel that's easy to derive from carbon neutral resources (nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.) via the electrolysis of water.

Commercial Viability: Should be capable of delivering an Orion capsule, Boeings CST-100 capsule, or a Dream Chaser space plane into orbit.

Atlas V with ACES 41 Service Module (SM) upper stage


Atlas V and ACES 41 with command module (credit: United Launch Alliance)

Launch Reliability: A two stage to orbit launch vehicle with engine out capability only in the second stage.

Environmental Impact: First stage utilizes greenhouse gas polluting RP-1 (Refined Petroleum 1) fuel with liquid oxygen. However, the production of RP-1 rocket fuel from carbon neutral resources may be a possibility in the near future.

Commercial Viability: Should be able to lift an Orion capsule (without the SM) and a Boeing CST-100 into orbit. However, launching the much heavier Dream Chaser space plane with a rear positioned LAS (Launch Abort System) may require additional solid rocket boosters which would inherently lower the space vehicle's launch reliability relative to other vehicles.

Falcon 9

Launch Reliability: A two stage to orbit vehicle with engine out capability only in the first stage. The Falcon 9 should be inherently safer than the Ares 1.

Environmental impact: Both first and second stages utilizes greenhouse gas polluting RP-1 (Refined Petroleum 1) fuel with liquid oxygen which would make the Falcon 9 the least green of any crew launch vehicle. However, the production of RP-1 rocket fuel from carbon neutral resources may be a possibility in the near future.

Commercial Viability: The Falcon 9's high inherent launch safety should be attractive to customers for manned spaceflights. Space X argues that the Falcon 9 could be the cheapest manned launch vehicle ever developed.

Ares I

Launch Reliability: A two stage to orbit vehicle with no engine out capability in the solid rocket booster first stage and no engine out capability in the single engine LOX/LH2 second stage. So the Ares I would be inherently less safe than the SD-CV, Atlas V, and Falcon 9 launch vehicles.

Environmental Impact: Upper stage uses carbon neutral liquid hydrogen/oxygen fuel that's easy to derive from carbon neutral resources (nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.) via the electrolysis of water. The CO2 produced from the polymers contained in the single solid rocket booster would be relatively tiny compared to the CO2 pollution that would be produced from vehicles such as the Atlas V and the Falcon 9.

Commercial Viability: It seems doubtful that private companies would be attracted to launching humans aboard a spacecraft with a liquid hydrogen/oxygen upper stage on top of a huge solid rocket booster.

Man-rated SD-HLV

Launch Reliability: Three boosters are required to reach orbit. And there is with no engine out capability in the two SRBs (solid rocket boosters). This makes the SD-HLV inherently less safe than the Ares I and a lot less reliable than both versions of the SD-CV.

Environmental Impact: Core booster uses carbon neutral liquid hydrogen/oxygen fuel that's easy to derive from carbon neutral resources (nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.) via the electrolysis of water. The CO2 produced from the polymers contained in the two solid rocket boosters is relatively tiny compared to the CO2 that would be produced from vehicles such as the Atlas V and the Falcon 9.

Commercial Viability: Because of the unnecessary addition of two SRBs, this would be a much more expensive manned launch vehicle than the SD-CV, Atlas V, or a Falcon 9. However, these cost might be mitigated if the cargo shroud also carried valuable cargo such as multiple satellites, hydrogen and oxygen for space depots, and water and oxygen for space stations. With a minimal payload capacity of at least 65 tonnes, the SD-HLV should be able to carry crew plus at least 40 to 50 tonnes of cargo to orbit-- which is much more cargo than the Space Shuttle.

Sidemount Shuttle

Credit NASA

Launch Reliability: Three boosters are required to reach orbit with no engine out capability in the two solid rocket boosters (SRBs). This makes the SD-HLV statistically not as safe as the Ares I and a lot less safe than an SD-CV. The placement of the crew capsule and LAS (launch abort system) on the side of the external tank also makes the Sidemount less safe than the inline SD-HLV.

Environmental Impact: Core booster uses carbon neutral liquid hydrogen/oxygen fuel that's easy to derive from carbon neutral resources (nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.) via the electrolysis of water. The CO2 produced from the polymers contained in the two solid rocket boosters is relatively tiny compared to the CO2 that would be produced from vehicles such as the Atlas V and the Falcon 9.

Commercial Viability: Because of the two SRBs, this would be a much more expensive manned launch vehicle than the SD-CV, Atlas V, or a Falcon 9. But like the SD-HLV, these cost might be mitigated if the cargo shroud also carried valuable cargo such as multiple satellites, hydrogen and oxygen for space depots, and water and oxygen for space stations.

Man-rated Delta IV Heavy

Launch Reliability: Three core stages and perhaps an upper stage would be required to transport humans to orbit. There would be no engine out capability in the three cores stages. This vehicle would be less inherently safe than the Ares I and only the LAS ( Launch Abort System) makes the Delta IV heavy inherently safer launch than the Space Shuttle.

Environmental impact: carbon neutral liquid hydrogen/oxygen fuel in core stage and upper ACES 41 stage that's easy to derive from carbon neutral resources (nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.) via the electrolysis of water.

Commercial viability: Should be capable of delivering an Orion capsule, Boeing CST-100, or a Dream Chaser space plane into orbit plus 10 to 20 tonnes of liquid hydrogen and oxygen fuel to LEO orbiting fuel depots.

Space Shuttle

Launch Reliability: Three boosters are required to reach orbit with no engine out capability in the two solid rocket boosters (SRBs). No LAS (Launch Abort System). However, there has only been one fatal launch accident in the nearly 30 year launch history of the Space Shuttle with no fatal launch accidents in the last 24 years.

Environmental Impact: Core booster uses carbon neutral liquid hydrogen/oxygen fuel that's easy to derive from carbon neutral resources (nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.) via the electrolysis of water. The CO2 produced from the polymers contained in the two solid rocket boosters is relatively tiny compared to the CO2 that would be produced from vehicles such as the Atlas V and the Falcon 9.

Relative Safety Levels to Low Earth Orbit

Safety Level One: SD-CV with ACES 41 (SM) upper stage

Safety Level Two: Atlas V + ACES 41 SM upper stage; Falcon 9

Safety Level Three : Ares I

Safety Level Four: SD-HLV

Safety Level Five: Delta IV Heavy

Safety Level Six: Space Shuttle

Relative Greenhouse Gas Impact Levels

Zero CO2 pollution: SD-CV (both versions); Delta IV Heavy
Relatively Minor CO2 pollution: Space Shuttle, SD-HLV, Ares I, Sidemount Shuttle
Highest CO2 pollution: Falcon 9, Atlas V

Of the crew launch options presented above, the SD-CV with an ACES 41 upper stage would have the safest inherent crew launch architecture. The Atlas V, the Falcon 9, and Boeing's SD-CV with a stretched hypergolic SM (Service Module) would be the next most inherently reliable launch vehicles with configurations inherently more reliable than the Ares I. Because of the addition of a LAS (Launch Abort System) the SD-HLV, Sidemount Shuttle, and a man-rated Delta IV heavy would be inherently safer than the Space Shuttle but still less reliable in their architecture than the less complex Ares I.

The SD-CV and the Delta IV heavy would have the least environmental impact as far as global warming is concerned while the JP-1 fueled Atlas V (first stage) and Falcon 9 (first and second stages) would have the most deleterious greenhouse effect on the environment. While the global environmental impact of manned space launches (less than a dozen per year) is currently meager compared to other manned transportation systems, the emergence of space tourism could dramatically increase the number of manned space launches to hundreds or even thousands by mid-century as the high demand for manned spaceflights begins to dramatically reduce the cost of rocket engines and space vehicles in general. And this doesn't include the the growing demand for commercial and military satellites and space solar power satellites. Therefore, NASA needs to join the US military in helping to develop aerospace fuels that are derived from carbon neutral resources in order to mitigate the environmental impact of global warming from government and private commercial launched space vehicles.

Links and References

1. Conquering Cis-Lunar Space with Shuttle and ULA Derived Technologies

2. No time for NASA complacency on crew safety

3. National Launch System

4. Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles with Existing Propulsion Systems (Boeing Phantom Works)

5. A Commercially Based Lunar Architecture

6. DIRECT

7. Completed SD HLV assessment highlights low-cost post-shuttle solution

8. Boeing's New HLV Concept could be the DC-3 of Manned Rocket Boosters

9. ULA: Upper Stage Evolution

Ares vs the Sidemount and the Augustine Commission

by Marcel F. Williams

During Space Shuttle manager John Shannon's presentation of the Side-mount Shuttle (SD-HLV) concept to the Augustine Committee, he showed the committee figures that indicated that a SD-HLV with an EDS (Earth Departure Stage) could place approximately 39 tonnes of net payload into lunar orbit per launch. However, just a week later, a subsequent, more thoroughly analyzed NASA study, indicated that up to 47.8 tonnes of net payload could be placed into lunar orbit per SD-HLV launch with an EDS.

Unfortunately, in the Augustine commission's final report, a SD-HLV architecture that could only deliver 39 tonnes to lunar orbit was presented to the President. And this lower mass estimate led to the following conclusion by the committee:

"Among the other notable differences between the Ares V family and the more-directly Shuttle-derived launcher family is the mission-launch reliability. Since the latter requires three launches for each planned Constellation lunar mission,there would be a somewhat lower reliability in any given time window than would be provided by the Ares V, which only would require two launches in the same time window."

• Single launch plus EDS stage
• Net payload to lunar orbit:
• 47.8 tonnes
• Net payload to LEO:
• 100.8 tonnes
• Maximum Altair lunar lander mass:
• 47.8 tonnes
• Maximum Orion mass plus EDS payload to lunar orbit:
• 22 tonne Orion plus 25.8 tonnes of EDS net payload
  

Credit NASA

This is clearly an erroneous conclusion by the Augustine Committee since a single SD-HLV/EDS launch can deliver a full sized Altair vehicle (45 tonnes plus) to lunar orbit, while a second SD-HLV/EDS launch could deliver an Orion vehicle plus at least an equal mass of additional payload to lunar orbit. So if anything, a two launch SD-HLV scenario (47.8 tonnes plus 47.8 tonnes) would exceed the two launch Ares I/V scenario (22 tonnes plus 49 tonnes) in total mass delivered to lunar orbit. In fact, a single SD-HLV/EDS launch could, in theory, deliver a 22 tonne Orion vehicle into lunar orbit plus a 25 tonne lunar landing vehicle (more than 50% more massive than the 16 tonne lunar module of the Apollo era).

• Ares I/V dual launch configuration to lunar orbit

• 22 tonne Orion plus up to 49 tonne Altair lunar landing mass
  
• Ares I
  
• 25 tonnes to LEO
• Ares V:
• 188 tonnes to LEO

Credit NASA

NASA also concluded that an SD-HLV plus EDS stage could be developed in just 66 months at an estimated cost of $9.4B which is dramatically lower than NASA's estimated cost for the development of the Ares I/V which they conclude would cost over $30 billion. (Neither of these figures include the developmental cost of the Orion and Altair vehicles.)

The committee also made an obvious conclusion about the SD-HLV concept vs. the inline shuttle derived concept (DIRECT):

"While the Committee did not examine the technical trade between the side-mount and inline variants in detail, it observes that the side-mount variant is considered an in-herently less safe arrangement if crew are to be carried, and is more limited in its growth potential. "

However, they also noted the following:

"Historically, vehicles with heritage derived from prior demonstrated systems have shown greater reliability in early usage than newly developed systems. The process of converting an established cargo launcher into a human-rated launcher results in improved reliability, as was demonstrated in the early U.S. human spaceflight programs where modified ICBMs were employed as launch systems. History has shown that the early flight period is of much higher risk than would be expected later in flight history."

The Augustine Commission declared the current Space Shuttle as the most reliable U.S. heavy-lift vehicle ever built, judging the Titan HLV and Delta IV heavy as less reliable heavy lift vehicles. Since the DIRECT concept's Jupiter rocket would be a brand new booster, this would make the DIRECT Jupiter rocket a less reliable launch vehicle than the SD-HLV-- at least in its early stages. The DIRECT concept also requires 18 new technological developmental starts while the SD-HLV requires only 8; Ares I/V requires 35 total developmental starts.

If the Obama administration wisely decides to terminate the development of the Ares I/V configuration in favor of the SD-HLV-- while also adding $3 billion additional dollars to the NASA annual budget, NASA should have enough money to continue Space Shuttle flights until the Orion CEV and SD-HLV are ready for flight. NASA is currently spending more than $3.5 billion on Constellation development programs; that should be plenty for the Orion and related program integration and operations development. And the additional $3 billion a year should be plenty of money to develop the SD-HLV ($6.9 billion), EDS ($2.5 billion), and Altair ($4.2 billion) over the next 6 years. Plus any delays and additional cost in developing this space architecture could be easily met by the annual $6.5 billion NASA budget solely dedicate towards developing the SD-HLV, EDS, Orion, and Altair. That's up to $32.5 billion in additional funds if it takes NASA all the way to 2020 to finish the new space architecture. Once the new launch architecture is completed and the Space Shuttle program finally retired and we're back on the Moon setting up permanent modular settlements, NASA is going to have several billion dollars a year in surplus funding on its hands-- perhaps to utilize in developing the next space architecture to get us to Mars!

Links and References

1. NASA Sidemount Shuttle Report June 25, 2009
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-alternative-rocket-pdf,0,7079469.htmlpage

2. NASA Sidemount Shuttle Report June 17, 2009
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361842main_15%20-%20Augustine%20Sidemount%20Final.pdf

3. Augustine Commission Final Report
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf

4. Daily Kos Poll (Which nation will be first to establish a permanent base on the Moon?)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/8/802191/-Ares-vs-the-Sidemount-and-the-Augustine-Commission

Obama's NASA Decision

by Marcel F. Williams

The Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee (the Augustine Commission) recently concluded that NASA's Constellation return to the Moon program is running $50 billion over the current budget through the year 2020. They also concluded that cheaper alternatives such as the NASA's Side-mount shuttle and the DIRECT concept would also exceed NASA's budget by at least $20 billion to $30 billion.

So it appears that the Augustine commission will recommend a $3 billion dollar increase to NASA's annual budget if the US is to return to the Moon or a termination of the Moon program in order to stay within NASA's current $17 billion dollar a year budget.

So what should President Obama do?

At the height of the Apollo program, the NASA budget reached $33 billion a year in today's dollars, nearly twice as large as NASA current budget. NASA's $17 billion annual budget represents less 0.6% of the total Federal budget while the US Federal government is spending nearly a trillion dollars annually on defense related purposes. So a $3 billion annual increase to the NASA budget would be extremely tiny relative to the overall Federal budget.

I believe that President Obama needs to raise the NASA budget while also choosing the fastest and the cheapest return to the Moon architecture. That's why President Obama needs to raise the annual NASA budget by at least $3 billion while choosing NASA's SD-HLV (Side-mount shuttle) concept in order to return to the Moon to set up a permanently manned lunar facility.

Terminating funding for the Ares 1 combined with a $3 billion annual increase should give NASA an extra $4 billion dollars a year to work with without immediately terminating the current Space Shuttle program or the ISS.

At least $700 million of that should go to finance the development the Orion (CEV) over the next 5 years which is currently being funded at nearly $1.4 billion a year. That would raise Orion funding to $2.1 billion a year over the next 5 years.

NASA has preliminarily estimated that the cost of developing the SD-HLV vehicles should cost $6.6 billion and could be ready for full testing in 4 and a half years. So 1.5 billion a year over the next 5 years should be more than enough to develop the SD-HLV vehicles.

That leaves another 1.8 billion a year to immediately start funding the development of the Altair lunar landing vehicle over the next 5 or 6 years so that America could be ready to return to the Moon by 2016. Why wait until 2020 to return to the Moon when the shuttle derived heavy lift vehicles could be ready by 2015 or 2016?

Additional funds for the development of the Moon program could be garnered by terminating the Space Shuttle program and US ISS involvement a year or more before the Orion-HLV and Altair-HLV space craft are ready. That would be $5 billion in additional funds if both the Shuttle and the ISS were terminated a year early and $10 billion if they were terminated two years early.

2016 should also be a time when NASA should have plenty of extra funds from both the termination of the Space Shuttle and ISS programs and from the completion of the Orion, Altair, and SD-HLV development programs: plenty of money for a continuously growing lunar base program and beyond.

The US space program has always been the ultimate symbol of America's scientific and technological achievement. And NASA has contributed far more to the economic wealth of the US than it has consumed. The expansion of humans into the rest of the solar system is essential to the long term survival our species and towards the continued economic growth of human civilization. That's why President Barack Obama needs to strongly commit the US towards leading that expansion of humanity into the New Frontier.

1. Augustine Commission
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2009/08/augustine-commission-recommends-that.html

2. NASAs-Ares-Alternative:-The-Side-mount-Shuttle

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/16/753191/-NASAs-Ares-Alternative:-The-Side-mount-Shuttle

3. Robots could build a base on the Moon

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/19/733423/-Robots-Could-Build-a-Base-on-the-Moon

© Marcel F. Williams
New Papyrus