| Exploration Systems Architecture Study |
Article Index for Exploration |
Website Links For Exploration |
Information AboutExploration Systems Architecture Study |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT EXPLORATION SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE STUDY | |
| human spaceflight | |
| project constellation | |
| space colonization | |
| exploration of the moon | |
|
]] SCOPE Current NASA Administrator held at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. on September 19 , 2005 . The ESAS includes a number of recommendations for accelerating the development of the CEV and implementing Project Constellation , including strategies for flying manned CEV flights as early as 2012 and methods for servicing the International Space Station (ISS) without the use of the Space Shuttle {Link without Title} , using cargo versions of the CEV. Originally slated for release as early as July 25 , 2005 , after the "Return to Flight" mission of Discovery , the release of the ESAS was delayed until September 19 , reportedly due to poor reviews of the presentation of the plan and some resistance from the Office Of Management And Budget . {Link without Title} . SHUTTLE BASED LAUNCH SYSTEM The initial CEV “procurement strategies” under Sean O’ Keefe would have seen two “phases” of CEV design. Proposals submitted in May of 2005 were to be part of the Phase 1 portion of CEV design, which was to be followed by an orbital or suborbital fly-off of technology demonstrator spacecraft called FAST in 2008. Downselect to one contractor for Phase 2 of the program would have occurred later that year. First manned flight of the CEV would not occur until as late as 2014. In the original plan favored by former NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe, the CEV would launch on an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle , namely the Boeing Delta IV Heavy or Lockheed Martin Atlas V Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle s (EELV). However, with the change of NASA Administrators, Mike Griffin has done away with this schedule, viewing it as unacceptably slow, and has proposed to move directly to Phase 2 in early 2006. He commissioned the 60-day internal study for a re-review of the concepts -- now known as the ESAS -- which favors launching the CEV on a Shuttle-derived Launch Vehicle . Additionally, Griffin plans to accelerate or otherwise change a number of aspects of the original plan that was released last year. Instead of a CEV fly-off in 2008, NASA will move to Phase 2 of the CEV program in 2006, with CEV flights to commence as early as June 2011. The ESAS calls for the development of two shuttle-derived launch vehicles to support Project Constellation {Link without Title} ; one derived from the space shuttle’s Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) to launch the CEV , and an in-line heavy-lift vehicle using SRBs and the shuttle’s External Tank to launch the Earth Departure Stage and Lunar Surface Access Module. The performance of the Cargo Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle (SDLV) would be 125 metric tons to Low Earth Orbit (LOE). An SDLV would allow a much greater payload per launch than an EELV option. and The crews that would be launched in the CEV atop a five-segment derivative of the shuttle's Solid Rocket Booster would include a new liquid-propellant upper stage, originally to be powered by a Space Shuttle Main Engine , but since a report on space.com (dated January 20, 2006 ), this has now been changed to a J-2s motor, an uprated J-2 engine used on the Saturn IB and Saturn V rockets (due to a change in the size of the CEV and the maximum number of crew members being set to four). This booster would be capable of placing up to 25 tons into low Earth orbit. The booster would use components that have already been man-rated. Cargo would be launched on a heavy-lift version of the Space Shuttle, which would be an "in-line" booster which would mount payloads on top of the booster. The in-line option would feature five Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) on the first stage, two enlarged five-segment SRBs, and would include the Earth Departure Stage (EDS) as the second stage. It could lift about 125 tons to LEO, and is estimated to cost $540 million per launch {Link without Title} . Therefore, the infrastructure at Kennedy Space Center , including the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) and Shuttle launch pads LC-39A and 39B would be maintained and adapted to the needs of the future giant launch vehicle, with an option of constructing two new pads (LC-39C & LC-39D) or resurrecting the former LC-34 at the nearby Cape Canaveral Air Force Station used by the Saturn IB for the Apollo 1 and Apollo 7 missions. CEV CONFIGURATION The ESAS recommends strategies for flying the manned CEV by 2012, and endorses a Lunar Orbit Rendezvous approach to the Moon. The LEO versions of the CEV would carry crews of six to the ISS. The lunar version of the CEV would carry a crew of four and the Mars CEV would carry six. Cargo could also be carried aboard the CEV . The contractor for the CEV will be selected by Spring of 2006, between Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman . The CEV re-entry module would weigh about 12 tons — almost twice the mass of the Apollo Command Module — and, like Apollo, would be attached to a service module for life support and propulsion. The CEV would be an Apollo-like capsule, with a Viking -type Heat Shield , not a Lifting Body or Wing ed vehicle. It would land on land rather than water, similar to the Russia n Soyuz Spacecraft . However, it would be capable of a water recovery if an emergency splashdown were needed. Possible landing areas that have been identified include Edwards Air Force Base , California, Carson Flats, Nevada , and the area around Moses Lake, Washington state. Landing on the west coast would allow the majority of the reentry path to be flown over the Pacific Ocean rather than populated areas. The CEV would have an ablative (Apollo-like) heat shield and could be reused about 10 times {Link without Title} . Accelerated lunar mission development is slated to start by 2010 , once the Shuttle is retired. The Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM) and heavy-lift boosters would be developed in parallel and would both be ready for flight by 2018 . The eventual goal is to achieve a lunar landing in 2018 . The LSAM would be much larger than the Apollo Lunar Module and would be capable of carrying up to 23 tons of cargo to the lunar surface to support a lunar outpost. This weight in cargo is greater than the mass of the entire Apollo Lunar Module (LM). Like the Apollo LM, the LSAM would include a descent stage for landing and an ascent stage for returning to orbit. The crew of four would ride in the ascent stage. The ascent stage would be powered by a Methane / Oxygen fuel for return to lunar orbit. This would allow a derivative of the same lander to later be used on Mars missions, where methane propellant can be manufactured from the Martian soil in a process known as In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU). The LSAM would support the crew of four on the lunar surface for about a week and use advanced roving vehicles to explore the lunar surface. The huge amount of cargo carried by the LSAM would be extremely beneficial for supporting a lunar base and for bringing large amounts of scientific equipment to the lunar surface. {Link without Title} LUNAR MISSION PROFILE The lunar mission profile will be a Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR) approach. First, the LSAM and the EDS will be launched atop the heavy-lift, Shuttle-derived vehicle. The EDS would be a derivative of the Shuttle's external tank with two updated versions of the J-2 engines that powered the Apollo Saturn V 's second and third stages. The crew will then be launched in the CEV on the SRB-derived booster, and the CEV and LSAM will dock in Earth orbit. The EDS will then send the complex to the Moon. The LSAM will brake the complex into lunar orbit, when four astronauts will board the LSAM for descent to the lunar surface for a week of exploration. Part of the LSAM could be left behind with cargo to begin establishment of a long-term outpost. The article says that both the LSAM and the lunar CEV would carry a crew of four. Griffin has subsequently stated {Link without Title} that the entire crew would descend to the lunar surface, leaving the CEV unoccupied. After the time on the lunar surface has been spent, the crew would return to lunar orbit in the ascent stage of the LSAM. The LSAM would dock with the CEV. The crew would return to the CEV and jettison the LSAM, and then the CEV's engine would put the crew on a course for Earth. Then, much like Apollo, the service module would be jettisoned and the CEV would descend for a landing via a system of three parachutes. Two parachutes are enough for landing (although in the western United States rather than the Ocean). The article says that the ESAS contains a recommendation for at least two missions to the moon each year, starting no later than 2018 . Ultimately a base would be built, possibly near the Moon's south pole. But this decision has not yet been taken and might depend on potential international and commercial participation to the exploration project. EXTENSION TO MARS The use of scalable CEVs and a lander with methane-fueled engines means that meaningful hardware testing for Mars missions could be done on the Moon. The eventual Mars missions would start to be planned in detail around 2020 and would include the use of Lunar ISRU and also be "conjunction-class", meaning that rather than doing a Venus flyby and spending 20–40 days on the Martian surface, the crew would go directly to Mars and back and spend about 500–600 days exploring Mars. {Link without Title} COSTS The ESAS estimates the cost of the manned lunar program through 2025 to be $217 billion, only $7 billion more than NASA's current projected exploration budget through that time. This estimate may be high because it includes the cost of developing a new engine for the EDS, whereas the current plan is to use a J-2 derivative[http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asec-moon073105,0,3136666.htmlstory?coll=orl-home-promo . Therefore, the plan is achievable using currently planned funding without significant cuts to NASA's other programs. If the Shuttle is retired early, the funding would be available sooner, making the start of lunar mission development even earlier and saving the additional $7 billion needed by the plan. Supporters of Constellation see this as an additional reason to retire the Shuttle as soon as possible, aside from the safety concerns; the only thing stopping advanced lunar development from starting right now is the cost of flying the Shuttle. CRITICISM Beginning Apil 2006 there has been some criticism on the feasibility of the original ESAS study. The NASA LRA-0 presentation identifies some of these problems: The proposed use of methane/oxygen in the CEV and LSAM together with the intended in-space storage capability results in intolerably large fuel boiloff. To solve this problem it is proposed to use more conventional Hypergolic fuel instead. These propellants (i.e. NTO / MMH ) do have a slightly lower ISP which leads to a weight problem. The reduction of the CEV's diameter from 5.5m to 5.0m should compensate for this weight increase, but maybe not enough. The shift from SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine) to the J-2s motor for the CLV strengthens this problem. To compensate for this it may be nessesary to switch from LOR (Lunar Orbit Rendezvous) to a more energy efficient L2 -Rendezvous, but this leads to another set of problems. The mission time will be an extra 6 days longer which considerably increases the risk of the crew being exposed to hazardous solar flares. Considering these problems the final mission to moon is likely to be different from the original ESAS plan. SEE ALSO
EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|