Category: Constellation

[/caption]
As previously reported on the Universe Today, recent parachute test-drops for the Constellation Project have brought mixed results. The Ares I drogue parachute test appeared to perform flawlessly on July 24th, but the July 31st Orion test drop was a different story. Very early on in the parachute test, the “programmer parachute” (the first small parachute to be deployed, righting the descending crew module, setting Orion up for drogue deployment) failed after not inflating in the turbulent wake of the vehicle. This event set in motion complete parachute failure, ultimately forcing a hard-landing (crash) into the Arizona desert. Now NASA has released a video and pictures of the test…

On July 31st, hopes were high for a successful parachute test drop above the U.S. Army’s Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. The week before, the Ares I re-usable booster rocket drogue parachutes had proven themselves, so pressure was on for the Orion analogue – the Parachute Test Vehicle (PTV) – to perform as it should.

A re-entering crew module has a complicated series of parachute deployments before it can land safely (a.k.a. a “soft” landing). Unfortunately, the July 31st test drop was anything but soft. Although the parachute deployment system performed as it should (i.e. the 18 parachutes opened at the correct time and in the correct manner), but the problem came right at the start of the chain: when the very first “programmer parachute” was deployed. As with any descending space vehicle, a programmer parachute needs to be deployed to ensure the crew module is a) the correct way up and b) set up for the critical “drogue parachute” deployment. The drogue reduces the vehicle’s velocity very quickly, moments before the main parachutes are deployed.

Alas, the programmer parachute never opened fully in the turbulent air behind the PTV, forcing the vehicle to swing wildly out of control. The drogue parachute had little chance to slow the descent as the spinning vehicle cased the inflating drogues to be ripped away. So the PTV went into freefall…

After falling for several seconds, the main parachutes made an appearance. Looking more like a party popper than a crew module, two of the main parachutes were ripped away like streamers, only one of the three parachutes remained connected. So its fate was sealed, the PTV was going to make a bone crushing hard-landing.

See the NASA video of the whole test, from drop to crash »

Oh well. I hope NASA has better luck next time. According to officials, this does not indicate an Orion technology failure, it was a “test technique failure” that was bound to frustrate the engineers on the ground. After all, the parachutes did deploy, they just didn’t open…

Suddenly the April hard-landing of the Russian Soyuz vehicle doesn’t seem so bad…

Source: NASA

[/caption]

NASA will add a system engineers equated to shock absorbers to Ares 1 rockets to reduce significant vibrations that could shake the Orion spacecraft and astronaut crews during early stages of the flight. Earlier, engineers had determined that at about 115 seconds into the flight, the Ares rocket would vibrate for about 5 seconds, enough to potentially make it difficult for crews to read console displays. To mitigate what’s called thrust oscillation, engineers have proposed an active tuned mass absorber that would detect the frequency and amplitude of the thrust oscillation with accelerometers and internal pressure sensors, and use battery-powered motors to move spring mounted weights up and down to damp the vibration out. A spring-and-damper ring will separate the first and second stages of the rocket, and 16 actuators that act like shock absorbers will be added to the bell-shaped aft skirt at the bottom of the rocket.

Engineers are also looking to use a passive “compliance structure” which is a spring-loaded ring that would detune the stack by softening the interface between the first and upper stages while preserving lateral stability in the Ares 1 design concept.

This concept is expected to reduce the G-forces on the astronauts from about 5 G’s to .25 G’s.
Computer modeling and early design analyses showed the Ares 1 rocket would shake near 105-115 seconds into the flight after liftoff, subjecting the Orion spacecraft and astronauts onboard to high G forces for only about 5 seconds. But NASA engineers were concerned that astronauts could be injured or critical systems could be damaged during that time of the flight.

The thrust oscillation occurs as solid fuel in the first stage depletes, leaving a long, empty shell that takes on the characteristics of an organ pipe, resonating, at frequencies between 12 and 14 hertz. The second stage of the rocket and the Orion spacecraft atop it will naturally dampen the resulting pressure pulses, which essentially would jackhammer the astronauts and make it difficult for them to read console displays and respond.

Source: NASA news conference.

[/caption]
NASA is debating whether the new Orion capsule should land in the water, like Apollo, or on land, similar to how the Russian Soyuz capsule returns to Earth. To help them determine the potential for human injuries with each possible landing scenario, NASA has used human cadavers during their tests. At first, this revelation may seem quite morbid or even gruesome. But as Keith Cowing said in his expose article on Space Ref and NASA Watch on this subject, “Given the potentially hazardous nature of the tests required, cadavers must be used in the place of living persons.” Sometimes, crash-test dummies or computer simulations don’t provide the crucial information needed, such as the forces on the spinal cord or internal organs. If NASA doesn’t have that information, they can’t get accurate test results. Living test subjects could possibly be killed during the landing tests. Imagine the headlines if that happened. So they have used cadavers. The cadavers NASA used were donated to science to be used for exactly this type of purpose, and NASA, of course, went through the proper channels to obtain the cadavers and treats them in an ethical manner. So while this may seem a little grisly, NASA is doing the right thing.

Marc Carreau from the Houston Chronicle also wrote an article on this subject, and he interviewed David Steitz, a spokesman for NASA’s medical division. “It’s a socially awkward topic,” Steitz said. “The bodies are all carefully handled through all of the tests. We follow ethical medical procedures with these bodies that have been donated for science.”

Three human bodies were used during testing last year, said NASA seat engineer Dustin Gohmert, to help determine the potential for serious human injury during descent and landing. “The interface between the spacesuit and the seats is relatively complex, much more so than in an automobile, even one from the racing industry,” Gohmert said. “The (forces) we anticipate have never been studied before. We are using this research to help define and refine the suits and the seats.”

Tests using human bodies has been done for previous spacecraft, as well.

Cowing received this statement from NASA on the use of cadavers:

“In limited cases, postmortem human subject tests may be performed when insufficient data are available from simulations that use dummies or from mathematical modeling of the human body responses. This is particularly critical where the dynamic responses of internal organs and soft tissue must be evaluated. Using a combination of test methods, the engineering and scientific teams at NASA are able to enhance astronaut safety by designing landing attenuation systems that will minimize accelerations imparted to the crew and significantly reduce the potential for injuries.”

Personally, I could imagine donating my body for this type of research. Even if I never get to fly to space when I’m alive, I’d be proud to help the rest of the human race get there and return safely by giving my body for tests such as this.

News Sources: NASA Watch, Space Ref, Houston Chronicle

[/caption]
On the heels of news about NASA engineers who feel the Constellation program is using the wrong kind of rockets comes word that efforts to build the spacecraft which will replace the shuttle and return astronauts to the moon is running behind and over-budget. NASA Watch published a leaked internal NASA document showing the Constellation Program has encountered financial and technical problems, and the Associated Press quoted Doug Cooke, NASA’s deputy associate administrator for exploration as saying the first test flights for Orion may be delayed. However, the delay thus far is only of NASA’s internal goal of having the spacecraft ready by 2013. Cooke said they are still on target for NASA’s public commitment of first test flights by 2015, and returning to the moon by 2020. But unless the space agency can receive more funding, further delays may be inevitable.

The 117-page report shows an $80 million cost overrun this year for just one motor and a dozen different technical problems that the space agency put in the top risk zone, meaning the problems are considered severe. The report put the program’s financial performance in that category, as well.

Some experts say it’s too early to be worried, others say NASA’s design is flawed or the space agency is just repeating mistakes made in developing the space shuttle. But almost everyone agrees that NASA isn’t getting enough funding to do what they’ve been asked to do.

Additional funding from Congress is pending, but in an election year, don’t count on it.

News Sources: NASA Watch, Newsweek/AP

There’s a group of NASA engineers who believe NASA is making a mistake with its new Constellation program to replace the shuttle, which will use the new Ares rockets for launches starting in 2014. Constellation is an all new program which requires everything to be built from the ground up. The group of engineers asks, why not use the systems we already have that work reliably? The engineers, who are working clandestinely after hours on their plans have been joined by business people and space enthusiasts, and they call the plan Direct 2.0. They believe this approach could be flying sooner than Ares, reducing the gap in the US’s access to space, and providing a smoother transition for the workforce. Additionally it is more powerful than Ares, has lower risks for the astronauts, adds additional servicing missions to the Hubble Space Telescope, and reduces the cost to orbit by half.

Proponents say the Direct 2.0 approach is more capable than Orion, can lift more mass into Earth orbit and boost more mass out of Earth orbit on to other destinations. The concept is simple: use the same orange external tank and booster rockets as the shuttle, but don’t use the orbiter. Put additional engines on the bottom of the tank, and the cone-shaped Orion capsule on the nose. They call the rocket system Jupiter, and not only would Jupiter have less cost per launch, but it would cost less per kilogram to put things in orbit. They also say the crew abort limits are safer than Ares 1, and would require only minor modifications to the current mobile launch platform.

Instead of having the separate Ares-I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) and Ares-V Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) they use just one single Jupiter launcher, capable of performing both roles.

On their website, Directlauncher.com, they say “This change to NASA’s architecture completely removes the costs & risks associated with developing and operating a second launcher system, saving NASA $19 Billion in development costs, and a further $16 Billion in operational costs over the next 20 years.”

But recent articles by the Associated Press and the Orlando Sentinel say that NASA is not interested in this concept, and that its nothing more than a concept on the back of a napkin. Additionally, Ares is so far along, with test flights scheduled for next year, that there’s no turning back now.

But the Orlando Sentinel article says that NASA ended a study last fall which showed Direct 2.0 would outperform Ares. The initial results showed Direct 2.0 was superior in cost, overall performance and work-force retention, which is a big issue for Florida.

The engineers who work at NASA say they can’t speak out directly for fear of being fired, but an outside group who supports their efforts are trying to get the word out about the plan.

Check out their website includes a discussion forum, a presentation on their concept and much more. Here’s a video that explains the concept:

In short, they say the Direct 2.0 approach introduces many advantages over the current Ares Launch Vehicles, such as:

Shorter “gap” after the Shuttle retires (3 years vs. 5)
Earlier return to the Moon (2017 vs. 2019)
Deletes all risks and costs associated with a second new launch vehicle
Optimum use of the existing NASA & contractor experience

Original News Sources: AP, Orlando Sentinel, ABC’s Science and Society Blog, Directlauncher.com

NASA unveiled a new design of spacesuits for the Constellation program today. Astronauts will be donning the new suits on the first flights of the Orion spaceship, scheduled for 2015, on trips to the International Space Station, with additional EVA suits ready for the first missions to the moon, scheduled for 2020. The spacesuits feature rear entry, enhanced shoulder mobility and modular, interchangeable parts. The spacesuits will be designed and produced by Oceaneering International Inc. of Houston, Texas, which received a contract worth $183.8 million for 2008-2014.

NASA required two spacesuit system configurations for the Constellation program. The first type of spacesuit (Configuration One) will be used for launch and landing operations, as well as inside the spacecraft during an emergency like loss of pressurization of the Orion crew compartment.

Configuration Two will build upon Configuration One and will support lunar surface operations. While preparing to walk on the moon, the astronauts will be able to build their own personal Configuration Two spacesuits by replacing elements of Configuration One with elements specialized for surface operations.

Suits and support systems will be needed for as many as four astronauts on moon voyages and as many as six space station travelers. For short trips to the moon, the suit design will support a week’s worth of moon walks. The system also must be designed to support a significant number of moon walks during potential six-month lunar outpost expeditions. In addition, the spacesuit and support systems will provide contingency spacewalk capability and protection against the launch and landing environment, such as spacecraft cabin leaks.

Video of the new Constellation spacesuits.

Video of spacesuit tests.

Pdf. file for more info on the new spacesuits and the contract award.
Original News Source: NASA Press Release

NASA is facing some serious problems, and whether these problems are perception or truth remains to be seen. A government report presented at a congressional hearing on April 3 says NASA’s Constellation Program faces severe problems and the new spacecraft might never work as intended. The Government Accountability Office, (they call themselves the “the investigative arm of Congress”) issued the report which lists several critical issues, especially with the Ares I rocket, which is prone to violent shaking on liftoff and might not have enough power to reach orbit. NASA has requested an additional $2 billion over the next two years to boost development of the new spacecraft, but the GAO doubts whether that will be enough to overcome the design flaws and for the space agency to achieve timely success with the program.

The GAO identified several areas that could delay Constellation:
• Both vehicles have a history of weight issues;
• Excessive vibration during launch threatens system design;
• Uncertainty about how flight characteristics will be impacted by a fifth segment added to the Ares I launch vehicle;
• Ares I upper stage essentially requires development of a new engine;
• No industry capability currently exists for producing the kind of heat shields that the Orion will need for protecting the crew exploration vehicle when it reenters Earth’s atmosphere; and
• Existing test facilities are insufficient for testing Ares I’s new engine, for replicating the engine’s vibration and acoustic environment, and for testing the thermal protection system for the Orion vehicle.

In effect, the report says, NASA has a design for the Constellation project — but as yet there is no assurance that all the components will work as planned.

NASA has claimed that Constellation is on schedule, and the problems are manageable. “I’ve rarely seen more of a mountain made out of less of a molehill,” NASA Administrator Mike Griffin told the Space Transportation Association in Washington, D.C., last month.

NASA is expected to announce they have developed a strategy for dealing with Ares’ shaking problem. The Orlando Sentinel quoted special assistant to the administrator Chris Shank: “We have a mitigation strategy.”

The Sentinel also quoted a former NASA official who asked not to be named as saying the Ares rocket faces the perception problems that have dogged NASA throughout its history. Politicians and the public are skeptical the agency can complete its program on time and on budget. Without political and public support, NASA could face troubling times.

Here’s NASA’s video about the Constellation Program:

Original News Sources: Orlando Sentinel and the GAO Report

As the space shuttle program winds down and NASA transitions to the new Constellation program, more than 8,000 NASA contractor jobs in the manned space program could be eliminated after 2010, the U.S. space agency said at a press briefing on April 1, 2008. A NASA report sent to Congress predicts that between 5,700 and 6,400 jobs will be lost at the Kennedy Space Center, where the shuttle processing takes place, before 2012. After that time, a few hundred jobs will be added yearly as the new moon-landing program gets started, with the first Constellation launch tentatively scheduled for 2015. Some NASA managers believe that an update to Tuesday’s report, which is due to Congress in six months, won’t be quite so bleak, but NASA said it could be more than a year before it has more dependable job forecasts.

The most dramatic job cuts will be among private contractors. Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA associate administrator said that the estimates of job losses were preliminary and they do not take into account numerous factors of potential workload. “Don’t overreact to these numbers,” he said.

The report stated “Our (NASA’s) greatest challenge over the next several years will be managing this extremely talented, experienced and geographically dispersed workforce as we transition from operating the space shuttle to utilizing the International Space Station.”

Nationally, NASA said the number of full-time civil servants in its manned space program would fall to about 4,100 in 2011, a loss of about 600 jobs from this year. Including outside contractors, the number of jobs would fall to an estimated 12,500 to 13,800. About 21,000 are currently employed.

Rick Gilbrech, NASA associate administrator for exploration systems, said that many future contracts for the Constellation program to develop the new moon rockets and spacecraft to replace the shuttle fleet, could improve the local NASA jobs picture.

“There’s a lot of work that’s not folded into these numbers,” he said.

Gilbrech added that the next U.S. president and Congress might not support the Constellation program, which is President Bush’s vision for returning to the moon and going on to Mars.

“We do need stable support and long-term commitment,” he said.

KSC Director Bill Parsons said Tuesday he estimates the center’s 15,000 on payroll will drop to 10,000 people in the next few years before starting to climb slowly. He said, however, that there is hope that layoffs might be rare because up to one-third of KSC workers are eligible to retire before or around the time that the shuttle program ends in 2010. He does not expect workers to abandon their jobs for new careers before then.

“This is not a work force that panics,” he said, referring to the recovery from two shuttle accidents.

Retirement will provide a easier transition for some. However, younger workers may have to redirect their careers into the Constellation program. Those caught in the middle might have to learn new skills or relocate to avoid being laid off. There are also other ripple effects to other non-technical support jobs.

Original News Sources: Space.com, Florida Today