[ad_1]
NASA is studying the possibility of conducting the EM-1 mission using a pair of commercial rockets instead of the SLS. (credit: NASA) |
by Jeff Foust
Monday, March 18, 2019
Last week, news of the space industry was commented by NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine before a Senate committee on Wednesday that the agency was planning to use commercial rockets, rather than the space launch system, for the mid-term unprepared exploration mission (EM) 1. 2020. But signs indicating that the mission was in danger began to become evident more than a week ago, in another room of a nearby Senate office building.
| "We will not need the EU for a while anymore," Hunter said of the decision to postpone SLS Block 1B and its EUS. "We can reach the lunar surface faster this way." |
On March 5th, Jody Singer, director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, spoke at a luncheon hosted by the Space Transportation Association, discussing the various work in progress at its center, including the SLS. During the Q & A session that followed, a participant asked a simple question: was SLS still on track for a first launch in the middle of next year?
His answer was less simple. "The EM-1 launch preparation date is still expected around 2020," she said. "We know we are re-evaluating these dates to see if this date will work by making sure that a vehicle is ready and ready to fly safely." She added that NASA is doing "everything in its power to make sure that we support this."
Another issue raised during this event was the development of the Upper Exploration Stage (EUS) for the Block 1B version of SLS. NASA originally planned to leave Block 1 and its interim cryogenic propulsion stage after a single flight, but last year it decided to expand the development of the EUS system by planning three block 1 launches, one of which the Europa Clipper mission. How was EUS?
"We have made significant progress" on the EUS, she said, with a critical review of the design pending for the end of the year. "An essential aspect of upper-floor design is to ensure understanding of the mission and the elements to be achieved and the objectives to be achieved."
"As you know," she added, "the upper floor will be an essential part of the evolution of this vehicle that will allow exploration of the deep space."
Or maybe not. Less than a week later, the White House released its budget proposal for the 2020 fiscal year. For NASA, this required just over $ 21 billion, or $ 480 million less than what it was worth. She had finally received for the 2019 exercise when Congress passed and signed the appropriations bill last month. The proposal included new attempts to remove programs – the WFIRST Space Telescope, two Earth Science Missions and NASA's Education Office – which Congress had previously rejected.
A surprise, however, involved changes to the SLS. The budget request has delayed, for an indefinite time, the development of the Block 1B version of the rocket and the EUS. Elements of the NASA Lunar Gateway, which were to be launched as "co-manifested" payloads on the SLS with the crewed Oron spacecraft, will instead be launched on commercial rockets. (Or maybe those of international partners, because many elements of the bridge will come from it.)
In addition, the budget proposal would move Europa Clipper, currently scheduled for launch in 2023, from SLS to a commercial launcher. It was something that NASA had also proposed in last year's budget but which had been rejected by Congress, which imposed the use of SLS for both Europa Clipper and a tracker. According to the budget document, this change "would save more than $ 700 million, which would fund several new activities across the Agency."
Bridenstine, who delivered a speech on the budget proposal on the day of its publication at the Kennedy Space Center, said nothing about the provisions that delay the development of the SLS block 1S. This was left to representatives of other agencies during a teleconference with reporters later in the day.
"We will not need the EUS for a while any longer," said Andrew Hunter, NASA's Deputy Chief Financial Officer. "We can reach the lunar surface faster this way." He and other callers did not say when they thought NASA would need Block 1B.
Although the budget does not contain details on the schedule for EM-1, Hunter hinted that more delays were likely. "Ensuring EM-1 and EM-2 projects are launched as quickly as technically possible is one of the main objectives of this budget, a goal for which more money will not be accelerated", did he declare. "We are not asking for more money for SLS to do the work. We just need a little more time.
Jim Bridenstine told a Senate committee last week that the agency was considering a commercial launch vehicle that could replace SLS for Exploration Mission 1. (Credit: NASA / J. Kowsky) |
The alternative to commercial launch
These developments, however, were only the prelude to the bomb launched by Bridenstine at the Commerce Committee hearing. Following opening statements, the committee chair, Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) started asking questions about EM-1. "He was delayed," he said. "Last week, NASA informed Congress of a new delay for EM-1. NASA planned to launch no later than June 2020. However, according to NASA, further delays are to be expected. "
"And about that?" Wicker asked Bridenstine. "What are your plans to remedy this situation and consider alternatives?"
| "Sir, if we say to you and to other people that we are going to launch in June 2020 around the Moon – that's what EM-1 is – I think we should get started around the Moon in June 2020 and that be done, "said Bridenstine. |
Bridenstine said the SLS was still "an essential part" of NASA's plans for space exploration. But, he admitted, "SLS is struggling to meet its schedule" for a mid-2020 launch. "We now better understand how difficult this project is and that it will take a little longer."
"I think we, as an agency, must live up to our commitments," he said. "Sir, if we say to you and to other people that we are going to launch in June 2020 around the Moon – that's what EM-1 is – I think we should get started around the Moon in June 2020 and that be finished. "
This would include, he said, the possibility of replacing the SLS with commercial launchers for EM-1. "Certainly, there are opportunities to use the commercial capabilities to put the Orion crew capsule and the European service module into orbit around the Moon by June 2020, this which was our initial goal. " NASA, he said, was studying this option at his request. .
Bridenstine reported that the first Orion spacecraft had been launched on such a vehicle: a Delta IV Heavy rocket had placed an Orion in an elliptical orbit during the December 2014 Exploration Flight Test 1, testing it briefly before it began. eclipse in the Pacific.
This approach would be more complex, as no other vehicle than SLS could run the currently envisaged EM-1, which would imply an entry into lunar orbit. Instead, he said, two launches would be needed: one for Orion and one for an upper floor that would dock with Orion and then perform the transliterate injection needed to send it to the Moon. .
"As far as I know, this is the first forum on which you made such a statement," said Wicker. Bridenstine confirmed: "Last week, we found that we would not be able to meet the schedule."
This solution is currently undergoing an accelerated study within the agency, which is expected to make a decision within a few weeks, said Bridenstine. Among the problems, he noted, is that NASA had not previously considered mooring an Orion to an upper floor in Earth orbit, as this would not be necessary for SLS missions. "So by June 2020, we will have to make it a reality," he said.
"It's 2019," said Wicker.
| "While I agree that the delay in the launch schedule for SLS is unacceptable, I firmly believe that SLS should launch Orion," said Shelby. |
"We currently have amazing capabilities that we can use directly to achieve this goal," he said. "We can use standard capabilities, sir, to achieve this goal for EM-1 but not change the focus of the SLS and the EM-2."
This alternative approach would probably cost more money, although Bridenstine did not provide an estimate in his testimony. "There are options to achieve this goal, but it may require the help of Congress," he said.
"A solution to a problem"
This announcement triggered intense speculation in the space community about the concept and about the future of the SLS in general. At least one report even speculated that SpaceX would have the advantage over United Launch Alliance to carry out this alternative mission, although Bridenstine did not say anything about these companies in his testimony . Others wondered, given the other changes that NASA was considering with SLS, removing it from the launch missions of Europa Clipper and Gateway elements, what exactly was SLS serving for?
Some, difficult, treated the proposal with skepticism. "While I agree that the delay in the SLS launch schedule is unacceptable, I am firmly convinced that SLS should launch the Orion," said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) in a statement to the & # 39; 39, outcome of Wednesday's hearing.
Shelby is both an SLS champion, a project led by NASA Marshall and chairman of the Senate Credits Committee. "I'm more than passionate about what NASA does. And I have a little parish interest, too, in what they do in Huntsville, Ala., "He said in a brief Singer introduction to the Space Transportation luncheon Association. "Jody, you keep doing what you do. We will continue to finance you. "
The Coalition for Deep Space Exploration, an industry group whose companies include those working on SLS and Orion, highlighted the challenges of the alternative approach for EM-1 in a statement. "The challenges of integration are important," he said. "It is also clear that this approach would require additional funding as it is both to undertake this mission and to further develop the SLS."
One day after his Senate testimony, Bridenstine was back at Capitol Hill, this time for another Space Transportation Association luncheon. He used this event, if not to clarify his testimony, to at least point out that he had no intention of getting rid of SLS.
"It's a solution to a problem," he said of the commercial rocket project for EM-1. "This is not the solution. This is not sustainable. "
| The alternative approach "moves us forward," said Bridenstine. "It does not change a thing and certainly does not cancel it." |
As with others, he mentioned the added complexity of running two launches instead of one, as well as the risks associated with additional launches and berthing in low Earth orbit. "When you talk about the risk of sitting in orbit and placing humans in vehicles that will be before throwing them on the moon, it is a risk and a challenge that we will probably not have to take it, "he said.
The alternative approach "really moves us forward," he said, maintaining the space tests in Orion on schedule for 2020. The SLS that was to be used for EM-1 could instead be used for alternative missions, he suggested. as gateway launch elements. "It does not change a thing and certainly does not cancel it."
On Friday, the needle is back to the basic use of SLS for EM-1. "Good news: @NASA and Boeing teams work overtime to speed up @NASA_SLS launch schedule" he tweeted. "If possible, this is the preferred option for our first exploration mission that will send the @NASA_Orion capsule around the Moon. We are always looking for options. Neither NASA nor Boeing explained in detail how they were accelerating the SLS launch schedule or why they had not undertaken these efforts earlier.
The sequence of events left many questions unanswered. One set concerns the technical capacity to carry out this alternative mission within a period of 15 months. What vehicles can be ready in such a short time, since the typical delivery time of a new vehicle is usually much longer? How do you coordinate the two launches – which may require two different vehicles, or at least launch sites – to place Orion and the top tier quickly into orbit? What does it take to modify the Orion floor and / or the upper floor to allow mooring in orbit?
Then there are policy issues. How much will this alternative approach cost to the use of SLS? Where will this additional funding come from?
Most important of all, however, focuses on the implications for the SLS. In its comments on the critical importance of the SLS, NASA strives to minimize the importance of the rocket for these exploration plans, to transfer payloads on commercial rockets and to postpone work on Block 1B for at least several years. This leaves SLS the task of launching a crewed Orion spacecraft. But, if this alternative approach to EM-1 can demonstrate that Orion can be sent to the moon without the need for SLS, even this mission is in jeopardy. If you can do it once, you can probably do it again, including any necessary upgrading of selected vehicles to meet the crewed flight requirements.
This specific proposal may not last very long (the study must be completed in a few weeks, but may simply conclude that it is not achievable within the desired timeframe). However, even talking about the proposal opens the door for a later review of it and the need for the SLS.
Note: We are temporarily moderating all under-committed comments to cope with an increase in spam.
[ad_2]
Source link