Space Transportation at a Crossroads An Evolutionary

Space Transportation at a Crossroads – An Evolutionary New Future 01 August 2011 AIAA-JPC San Diego, CA Douglas G. Thorpe & John Robinson, Chairman Space Propulsion Synergy Team (SPST) An Evolutionary New Future 01 AUG 2011

US Manned Space Transportation is at a crossroads Current Path Alternate Path US Manned Space Program = Footnote in history A. K. A. : An Evolutionary New Future Establish routine access to space Executive Summary exec. ppt 2

Current Cost Path for Crew Delivery via Russian Sources . Executive Summary exec. ppt 3

Next Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV) • FACT: The Reusable Space Shuttle was developed because the totally expendable Saturn V was too expensive to operate. • FACT: Congress has allocated several $billion on the next HLLV (AND already spent over $9 B on the Ares vehicle development), which is going to be ALL EXPENDABLE. • FACT: Since the new vehicle won’t be ready for several years, any benefits of commonality with the Space Shuttle would be greatly diminished because most Shuttle workers would have retired or moved on to a different career • FACT: Development of ANY new HLLV will be extremely costly and unsustainable. • FACT: The Space Shuttle capabilities were never fully expanded by systematic upgrades requiring a few $B. Executive Summary AIAA- JPC. ppt 4

Space Shuttle Capabilities vs Russian Transport Space Shuttle capabilities • Deliver ~54, 000 lb of payload; • Deliver 7 passengers from its crew cabin, • Bring ~45, 000 lb of payload back to earth. Most importantly, Shuttle can do all three in ONE MISSION The Shuttle can greatly reduce the cost of processing & launching satellites by ensuring that they are working before being released from its cargo bay to its on-orbit destination. Cost Comparison: Shuttle: • • 7 crew + ~36, 600 pounds of payload to ISS in single launch @ total program cost of $829 M in 2007 7 crew + ~33, 000 pounds of payload to the ISS in single launch for ~$600 M in 2009 Russian: • • Russian capability requires two crew flights (one crew member short) + 4 cargo flights = one shuttle flight Russian crew flights = $318 M PLUS ~$189 M for each of the four cargo flights for Total cost of $1, 050 M. Executive Summary exec. ppt 5

Shuttles were Too Costly Contracts for each of the Shuttle Major Contractors and Costs of Support Centers are shown below for 6 Flights/Year. ~48% of the Space Shuttle costs (left side of chart) were fixed. Since NASA, Congress, or the Whitehouse aren’t going to shut down KSC, JSC, MSFC, or HQ, these costs will be transferred to ANY new HLLV. Executive Summary exec. ppt 6

Orbiters were too old Total flights to date: 134 Orbiter lifetime Remaining: 204 32% Challenger OV-099 10 Design Life: 100 Missions per Orbiter STS-51 L Columbia OV-102 28 STS-107 Discovery OV-103 39 Atlantis OV-104 Endeavour OV-105 32 25 STS-133 STS-135 STS-134 25 Current Through STS-107 (Feb ‘ 03) 50 100 * Orbiter design life 100 missions (10 years) Executive Summary exec. ppt 7

Nobody Wants the Space Shuttle • Several organizations, including Shuttle. Com, Global Outpost, Exploration Partners & others, are trying to persuade NASA, Congress, and the White House to privatize the Space Shuttle. • One entrepreneur offered NASA $4 B to purchase the Shuttle program, but was told that NASA does not have the authority to sell the Space Shuttle program. • One would question the logic that • NASA is able to hold a competition to GIVE the Orbiters away to museums, but cannot hold a competition to SELL the Shuttle vehicles (Surplus Government Equipment) to entrepreneurs who would continue to operate the Shuttle at KSC. • We can spend $9 B on a failed HLLV project, but can’t spend $1 B to streamline the Space Shuttle. Executive Summary exec. ppt 8

Its too late; Michoud is closed; Orbiters are gone Hypothetical Business Situation You think your 30 year old 2 nd generation factory is too expensive to operate (and you are in the process of shutting it down). It has much overhead and you haven’t upgraded the processes much over the 30 years. These are your business choices; Do you: 1. Outsource your work, • Which could eventually mean closing (all or part of) no longer necessary facilities and R&D labs, such as Michoud, MSFC, JSC & KSC and losing all capability to ever regain production capability 2. Develop a new factory based on the 1 st generation factory (Saturn V) • Even though the 2 nd generation factory (Shuttle) was developed because the 1 st generation factory was too expensive 3. Streamline & restart the 2 nd generation factory 1. While waiting on Michoud to re-open & start producing ETs, NASA could be performing major upgrades to streamline the Shuttles 2. The amount of funding needed to re-open Michoud, upgrade the Shuttle & develop the Shuttle-C may be as much as developing a new vehicle, but you will now be certain of a positive outcome. Executive Summary exec. ppt 9

What is the Alternate Path; What is a BOLD NEW FUTURE Succinctly, “An Evolutionary New Future” is the following: 1. NASA creates a line item in their budget that pays for infrastructure and other fixed costs that would remain if there were no Space Shuttle, SLS, or any other HLLV Program. 2. Privatization of the Space Shuttle where the government is just one of many customers who pay for goods delivered 3. NASA would promote the unique Shuttle capabilities by developing a Shuttle -C vehicle that would require the Shuttle to retrieve the Shuttle-C propulsion module and return it back to the earth. 4. NASA would foster the Space Shuttle business case by setting a goal of landing a man on the moon before the end of the decade via guarantee flights each year on the Shuttle and Shuttle-C vehicles. 5. NASA would assist the Space Shuttle business case by spending some technology development (or HLLV) funding on substantial Shuttle upgrades in return for guarantee mission costs of less than half to a third of what they are today and the possibility of more than 12 Shuttle missions per year. 6. NASA would foster the space tourism market by assisting in developing Shuttle based 40+ passenger space tourist buses and space hotels. Executive Summary exec. ppt 10

Space Shuttle operated by a private enterprise 1. Provide a continuous manned-access to space via a domestic source. 2. Provide a platform (the Shuttle-C) by which lunar missions or any beyond earth orbit mission could be made. 3. Provide a means to recover a Shuttle-C propulsion module. a. Thus greatly reducing the cost of operating the Shuttle-C. 4. Provide a means to promote the space tourist industry by transporting (via escape pods in the Cargo Bay) a large number (up to 40) of space tourists at a time who only pay less than $5 M for a two-week adventure. A private company will be able to assume all costs to operate the Space Shuttle Executive Summary exec. ppt 11

Use HLLV Funding to Improve SRB • • With no changes in NASA funding, any HLLV will be limited to less than 10 flights per year. Simple math will show that just the amortization of the $9 B already spent on the Ares rocket (over 200 flights in a 20 year program) will exceed the recurring cost of the Shuttle SRB’s. • We confidently state: “there is nothing that can be developed in • the near term that will be cheaper than utilizing the Space Shuttle SRB’s in their current 4 segment configuration” for a HLLV. Far better use of any HLLV funding would be to improve the existing Shuttle SRBs by replacing the toxic propellant-based HPU system for the hydraulic TVC with a much simplified TVC system. Executive Summary exec. ppt 12

Use HLLV funding to Integrate OMS/RCS/MPS/Fuel Cell Systems • Many trade studies have been conducted individually on the OMS, RCS, MPS, and fuel cell systems and/or their components. • Past trade studies were flawed • Looked at performance of single system or component • Did not consider the labor cost of processing each of these systems • Did not consider maintenance & operations cost of facility & GSE Better use of any HLLV development funding – Develop Integrated OMS/RCS/MPS/fuel cell system. How? 1. By converting toxic propellant based OMS into system based upon LOX/LH 2 (with much greater Isp) 2. By converting the toxic propellant based RCS into a system that is based upon compressed GOX. 3. By converting the fuel cell system that utilizes MPS LOX instead of a special grade of LOX. a. As a consequence the fuel cells will need to be purged more often which will result in GOX as a waste product. b. This “waste” product could be utilized by the RCS. 4. By integrating these systems, for example the ~5, 500 lb of residual LOX/LH 2 in the MPS after MECO on the Space Shuttle can be utilized. System will provide a ~25, 000 lb improvement in performance to LEO!!! Executive Summary exec. ppt 13

If the “EVOLUTIONARY BOLD NEW FUTURE” isn’t followed, major capabilities will be lost: • The ISS support will be compromised, e. g. , hardware change-out, assuming spare equipment is already at the ISS, requiring a work platform in space will not be available • Install / replace rack elements that otherwise doesn’t fit through hatch • Replace and install major components to big to fit in EELVs • Temporally augment the crew size to accomplish large unplanned task • Return either hardware or science to ground will not be available • Guarantees full utilization through 2020 • Repair or refuel satellites or spacecraft presently in space • Retrieve high value satellite, left in non-functional orbit, for re-deployment • Work platform with RMS in space for building or repairing hardware in space, e. g. , propellant depot in LEO • Limited rescue capability Executive Summary exec. ppt 14

Summary It is dreadfully clear that the US manned space program is at a crossroads. The current path leads to a colossal waste of money • Retiring the Space Shuttle, • Hiring the Russians to launch our crews to the ISS, • Outsourcing the ISS supply missions to the immature commercial providers • Dreaming of an expensive SLS with no defined mission • Risking a revolt by the taxpayers when the Congress keeps on spending more income trying to fund a space program that they cannot afford. • The Kennedy Space Center will become a mostly under-utilized launch center the next several years. However there could be another path; the Obama administration should set about AN EVOLUTIONARY NEW FUTURE. • Using the same funding already allocated for the next five years, • NASA should develop and mature advanced technological systems including: • A privatized, streamline Space Shuttle and Shuttle-C • 40+ passenger space bus & space hotel • Set a goal of a manned mission to the moon before the end of the decade Executive Summary exec. ppt 15

Evolved Space Shuttle ET Improvements Modern Cockpit Crew Escape System Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (PEM) State-of-the-Art Avionics and Comm Water Membrane Evaporator (WME) Integrated Vehicle Health Management (IVHM) Expendable Liquid Rocket Booster (ELRB) or Reusable First Stage (RFS, shown) or Five Segment Booster (FSB) Electrical Mechanical Actuator (EMA) Containerized Payload Module Highly Durable Thermal Protection System Robust Landing System Improved Main Engine (SSME NG) Non-Toxic OMS/RCS Composite Structure Executive Summary exec. ppt 16