NASA restarting suborbital rocket and balloon programs

The space science and astrophysics communities seem encouraged by what NASA managers are saying this year: DPS: NASA Night: Sweetness and light - The Planetary Society Blog - Oct.11.07.

This part sounds encouraging to me:

He [Alan Stern, associate administrator of NASA's Science Mission Directorate] announced that [they] are re-initiating the planetary suborbital rocket and balloon programs, which are ways to fly experimental hardware to high altitudes, above most of Earth's atmosphere, for testing; this will allow people who want to develop new kinds of hardware to "get their TRLs up." TRL refers to Technology Readiness Level, a measure of how confident we can be that new kinds of hardware will work on a space mission. Alan also measured that these programs will allow young workers (or old workers, he remarked) to get experience that will make them stronger candidates as principal investigators on future missions.

For NASA, suborbital rockets mean Black Brants and similar throw-aways. There should be an effort to convince NASA to allow reusable suborbital vehicles now in development by several companies to compete for those science missions where they can satisfy the altitude requirements. (Also, some of the suborbital RLV companies have expendable second stages at the design stage for sending small payloads to higher altitudes, e.g. some UV observation missions need to reach > 1000km.) RLVs would provide both lower cost per flight than current sounding rockets and provide the new capabilities of rapid turnaround and multiple flights in a short period. For example, a transient stellar phenomena that lasts for a few days could perhaps be examined several times with an instrument not available on an orbital system.

Such vehicles would benefit NASA and its science programs while bolstering a promising new industry with an additional market.

Posted 10/11/07 | 22:55:21 by TopSpacer | Filed under: Suborbital Spaceflight

Comments

Clark,

As an astrophysicist in training, I appreciate your coverage of this issue. You can bet that when I reach the Phd level that if I'm given the choice, I will review ALL of my options! But before I can even have a possibility to do anything about that I've got to complete my M.S.!

Hopefully, in about 4 more years (when I should be getting my doctorate) both NASA and my colleagues will be more knowledgable about their launch vehicle options.

Posted by Rick Boozer at 10/12/07 07:15:08

Sorry but I have to disagree with this one. If you reduce the sounding rocket cost by fifty percent or even more, the overall total mission cost reduction for a typical shot would be reduced by less than ten percent and that's optimistic. It's expensive to get even a small sounding rocket out of town, even if it's free. Many sounding rocket shots don't even bother with recovery because the cost is so high. Then there is the the added cost of recycling the ride and re-integration if you go the RLV route in comparison to a Black Brant system and typical mission as an example.

Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

Posted by Anthony Cesaroni at 10/12/07 15:53:25

Hi Anthony,
I've heard this objection to lower launch costs in general and I think it is true "if nothing else changes". But things WILL change. The design and implementation of experiments will change to take full advantage of these new capabilities.

Refurbish-able sounding rockets like those from UP Aerospace may not have a big impact but on the slightly longer term there will be "refuel and fly" RLVs like Masten Space Systems XA-1.0. Later there will be space tourist vehicles like the SS2, which can either fly dedicated missions with science/engineering payloads or in some cases carry them along on passenger flights.

Rides that are much cheaper and available much more frequently (essentially on demand) will mean that experiments can be built far more cheaply and require far less testing and hardening. Knowing that if something doesn't work you can always fly it again next month or next week or even tomorrow rather than in one or two years will clearly change the way experiments are done.

Lower cost, more frequent access also means far more scientists and engineers will come forward to take advantage of these opportunities. This not only will greatly increase the market but these newcomers will also bring innovation into the suborbital spaceflight area. Many of the current researchers will have trouble adapting but the new people will not be weighed down by "old ways" and will jump at the opportunities presented to them.

This is not theoretical. Rutan has said he got several requests to fly engineering test payloads with the SS1. However, he wanted to get on with the SS2 and Allen didn't want to risk the vehicle before it went to the Smithsonian. I communicated with one scientist at SWRI who has done a lot of suborbital work and he can hardly wait to take advantage of suborbital RLVs.

If nothing else, NASA should implement a launch voucher approach so researchers can use them for whichever launcher best fits their needs. This would help create a market in which companies will compete for the business. Furthermore, it would make scientists aware of launch costs. Currently, they are oblivious to such costs since NASA simply provides them with the flight as part of their grant.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 10/12/07 16:54:33

TopSpacer

You know that is exactly the type of arrogance that is responsible for many of the problems New Space faces. The �old researchers� you sneer at have probably forgotten more about sounding rocket operations then the New Spacers have ever known. Many of the New Space �breakthrough� were tried and discarded before the New Space kids were in diapers. New Space would be a lot further along if the they listen more to the professionals who have learned by experience instead of the amateurs you have none.

As for using the space tourist vehicles for research. There are a few problems there beyond the reality that there are NONE available today - are under development for some vague future date of service.

First, most sounding rockets actually go into space, REAL SPACE, not some legal boundary. Generally this requires them to reach altitudes in excess of 100 to 150 miles. Very little sounding rocket work is done at the LOW altitudes that space tourists will be flying to. This is why NASA never considered using the X-15 as a sounding rocket replacement even though it flew into �space� in the 1960�s.

Second, because these rockets actually go outside of the atmosphere before re-entry they take much higher stress and G forces then the New Space RLVs are designed for. This is why making them reusable is not economical especially if you have to protect the human pilot.

Third, the largest sounding rocket payloads are only about 1500 lbs. Most are much smaller, far less then the weight of the pilot and their life support system. Reusable piloted sounding rockets would need to be far more massive then the existing systems, and require far more energy and ground support to operate. And a larger ground crew. All this adds up to additional costs and complexity. The tradeoff is not going to be worth it.

Finally, many sounding rockets are launched to study specific phenomena. They need to go on time and not be held back a few hours to accommodate some space tourist related safety issue.. And they need to be launched from specific locations. Or have experiments normed to the far longer micro-gravity times available with existing sounding rockets. Neither would be compatible with the proposed operational characteristics of the proposed space tourist spacecraft.

So the prospects of the space tourist spacecraft replacing sounding rockets in the near future is very, very low. They are just not suited for the mission. And research are not going to abandon their lines of research just to accommodate the severe limitations of the space tourist spacecraft

With that stated I think there will be a niche for them to fill in providing meteorological information in the gap between balloon flights and sounding rockets. They may also be used for some micro-gravity research that doesn�t require the far longer times available from traditional systems. But to believe that the �old researcher� who don�t adapt to New Space will be put out to pasture only reflects the arrogance and ignorance typical of New Space and why space professional have little respect for it.

Posted by WiseSpacer at 10/13/07 10:47:49

Wisespacer

the typical loaded cost of a suborbital sounding rocket
is about a million dollars.

That's range fees, integration, payload development
and telemetry support.
That leaves a lot of room for a SRLV to come in
and make some money.

The existing payloads are optimised for the
existing boosters, new boosters will create
new capability which will create new demand.

Posted by anonymous at 10/13/07 12:04:23

WiseSpacer,
Well, first of all, if you are going to insult me, why can't you stand up and take responsibility for it? There is nothing "professional", or grown-up, about anonymous mudslinging.

For crying out loud, of course, current researchers (the handful that still manage to get any funding for suborbital spaceflights) do great work with the current types of expendable vehicles. Any "sneering" is in your imagination.

And of course many will take good advantage of new capabilities. But it is just a fact that in the sciences like everywhere else, there are those who rush to take advantage of new technologies and those who don't. This can be a case of being an "old researcher" but it usually involves having a big investment in equipment and in people trained in doing things in a certain way. This creates a lot of inertia.

It is often the case that a new generation of researchers takes best advantage of new opportunities. I saw this from my experience in experimental particle physics and I've observed it in many other fields.

With regard to your specific points, I explicitly noted that the new vehicles will need second stages for the higher altitude applications.

The Masten Space vehicle is not a tourist vehicle but is an unmanned system aimed directly at science and education applications. They plan for their follow-on vehicle XA-1.5 to go to 500km.

I also said that some of the tourist vehicles will be available for dedicated flights for science and engineering test missions. These will be flown when the scientists need them flown.

It's silly to claim that expendables offer greater flexibility for research work than these RLVs, which can fly essentially on demand.

The larger payload capacity of the RLVs will allow for multiple payloads. There could, for example, be a primary science mission and a host of smaller secondary experiments. The low costs are going to attract, for example, lots of education related payloads.

Yes, a micro-gravity experimenter might want a longer free fall time than available on a single RLV flight. But she might be glad to replace a once a year (or more likely once every 2 or 3 years) high altitude flight with several lower altitude flights within a short period that provide a lot more cumulative free-fall time.

This option of multiple low altitude flights in place of a single high-altitude flight could be suitable for other types of research as well. This is the sort of new capability that I'm saying needs new thinking to be best taken advantage of.

This not a binary situation. I agree with your final point that it's all a question of niches. I just think the RLV niche will be far bigger than you believe. There will be a long period when both RLVs and expendables will be in use for suborbital science and engineering test applications. Expendables will continue to be used where RLVs cannot meet the requirements of the mission. But RLVs can take over many current missions and also inspire new kinds of research. (Also, they will allow it to become more common to test and calibrate systems intended for orbital spacecraft first on a suborbital flight.)

The question is how strongly and how quickly NASA (and NOAA and NSF) will encourage the use of these new vehicles. Letting a researcher use a launch voucher to obtain the vehicle that best meets his or her needs would be a great way for them to do this.

- Clark S. Lindsey
http://www.hobbyspace.com
clarklindsey@hobbyspace.com

Posted by TopSpacer at 10/13/07 13:24:13

I use (hopefully without taking it too far) the analogy of the mainframes when personal computers first started (substituting the computer hardware for the suborbital rockets and the software applications for the suborbital payloads).

Did PCs open up a lot of cheaper applications created and used by smaller groups? Sure. Some were just for entertainment (like video games), but some were business or science applications. Did big computers and big applications go away? No. Some big applications did move to small platforms, or spun off variants to run on small platforms. The overall market grew, new companies started, and old companies adjusted (with varying levels of success). Even the makers and users of the big computer applications that stayed in that niche benefited from various hardware, software, and market changes brought about by the PC.

I'd expect the suborbital rocket business to change in the same way (perhaps in slow motion) IF some of the new suborbital rockets actually get built and perform as hoped. The decisions NASA (and other potential government users) make now about specifying their needs, committing to buying services, and so on have a lot to do (I think, in spite of the bravado of some of the NewSpace rocket makers) with the chances the industry has (at least in the U.S).

Posted by Ray at 10/14/07 10:50:03

Topspacer,

If your statement "Many of the current researchers will have trouble adapting but the new people will not be weighed down by "old ways" and will jump at the opportunities presented to them." wasn't an insult to the current generation of researchers I don't know what would be.

The researchers I work with are very interested in finding new and cheaper ways to get their data sets. Unfortunately the different New Space firms you discuss on your website aren't the way, not today. None of the New Space firms you discuss on Hobbyspace.com are currently offering any services, its all at some future date when investors fund their vehicles and they are actually operational. And none of the planned vehicles look like they will be able to replace the current vehicles in terms of performance.

And cost is an issue as the current sounding rockets are based on surplus military hardware. So the actual cost is low, probably too low for firms using manned sounding rockets to compete with. As anon noted a million dollar includes the entire cost for a mission is around a million dollars including instrumentation. A dedicated Spaceship two flight (5 seats * 200,000) would cost a million dollars without and barely reach half the altitude of a good sounding rocket. That�s a bargain???

Rest assured that IF such options as you talk about actually become available and have a cost advantage over existing systems they will be used by researchers. But that is not likely to be anytime soon.

As for the suborbital tourist vehicles, I think they do represent an opportunity to researchers to study the region they will fly operate in. In fact you have given me an great idea. I think carrying instrumentation should be mandatory as a means of measuring their impact on the environment. Given its an region poorly explored by sounding rockets it would be valuable to get a time series of how its changes from repeated exposure to rocket exhaust. The research funding to analyze the data could easily come from an environment impact fee on tickets for space tourists. A 5% fee would never be noticed but would provide millions in funding to better understand that critical region of the atmosphere. And would help stimulate that new generation of researchers you discussed. I think I will recommend it to some of the atmospheric researchers I work with.

Posted by WiseSpacer at 10/15/07 13:12:02

Clark wrote;

"Refurbish-able sounding rockets like those from UP Aerospace may not have a big impact but on the slightly longer term there will be "refuel and fly" RLVs like Masten Space Systems XA-1.0."

We design and build the propulsion system for the UP Aerospace rocket and it is not refurbish-able by any stretch nor was it ever intended to be. To do so would increase the cost considerably and reduce overall vehicle performance.

Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

Posted by Anthony Cesaroni at 10/15/07 13:27:23

Hi Anthony,
I thought UP Aerospace had said they were going to re-use at least a part of a vehicle. If not, then so be it. They haven't provided much tech info on their vehicles.

As with the Shuttle, it's hard to save a lot when a vehicle must be even partially rebuilt/refurbished between flights.
- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 10/15/07 14:08:00

WiseSpacer,
Well, "many" usually doesn't even constitute a majority. As I said, every scientific field has inertia when it comes to adopting a new technology, especially where it is ancillary to the scientific instruments that are their main concern. Pointing out that young researchers jump on new technologies quickly is something most scientists would take as a truism.

The statement by NASA about a revitalization of suborbital was about the future. My posting was about the future, i.e. within the next year or two when several types of vehicles will start flying to high altitudes: SS2, Blue Origin, Armadillo, XCOR, Masten, etc.

I made the simple suggestion that the agency "allow reusable suborbital vehicles now in development by several companies to compete for those science missions where they can satisfy the altitude requirements."

Note the word "compete". That means if the RLVs are as deficient, or as non-existent, as you claim then they won't win any contracts. Your expendables will get all the business and no need for you to get all worked up.

A launch voucher system would be one way to allow for such competition and to get a market going if only among expendable rocket makers.

I think, however, that the RLVs will, in fact, attract a number of users both for scientific apps and engineering tests. I mentioned that there were already requests to use the SS1 before it was retired.

Besides K-12 educational payloads, the RLVs will provide lots of opportunities for low cost experiments by undergrads and grad students. They will actually get to see their work go into space before they graduate.

I pick up your labored attempt at humor but in fact I've mentioned in previous posts that getting a daily reading of samples along a 100-150km track should certainly be of scientific interest.

I'm very much looking forward to the day when RLVs are flying people and scientific payloads so often that they become an environmental concern.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 10/15/07 15:08:13

Hi Clark,

Pretty much everything from the payload section down is junk as with most sounding rockets although the booster section on the UP unit does come down with an aerodynamic retarder (parachute). The fins will get damaged and the high mass fraction motor casing cannot be rebuilt. A significant mass fraction penalty would be paid in that regard. The payload and nose cone come back a bit softer but the re and re advantages are trivial in cost terms and may even be higher than just slapping a new point and tube on the whole affair.

Good, easy, cheap... you can only pick two. Going to space is not easy.

Take care.

Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

Posted by Anthony Cesaroni at 10/15/07 15:24:23

Topspacer,

All voucher system will do is create another laying of paperwork for researchers. And require them to go throught the FAA AST license process. And get launch insurance. And this will save them time and money???

As for students having access to space, NASA has already been provided a number of launches for students on NASA sounding rockets through its Student Launch Program. And 350 Ph.D.'s were awarded based on sounding rocket research.

http://rscience.gsfc.nasa.g...

There is nothing new about your proposal except it will probably end up costing the government more then its paying now to do sounding rocket launches in house using surplus military hardware. If you are that interested in increasing student access you should just ask Congress to fund more launches through the Student Launch Program.

The current system works. Why mess with it? Just to benefit a few companies that are not able to make in it in the free market?

Posted by WiseSpacer at 10/15/07 22:36:46

WiseSpacer,
Again, you are not seeing that an RLV world will be different. AST long ago agreed that RLVs won't need a new license for every flight. RLVs also will not need a new insurance policy for every flight.

Obviously, any sensible voucher system would be for vehicles that have been pre-approved by NASA for its programs. A researcher will simply take the voucher to the company that can provide the best ride for his or her experiment. NASA will reimburse the company for the launch expense. If the researcher chooses one of the current expendables, the procedure need be no different than it is currently.

The RLVs will greatly increase the opportunities for flights for far more students and allow them to fly more quickly than with expendables. You can dispute this all you want. I will dispute you right back. We clearly aren't going to agree on this. We will just have to wait a couple of years and see how it all turns out.

I'm all for pushing Congress to increase funding for both suborbital sciences and student launch opportunities. In fact, that was a talking point on a Capitol Hill campaign I once participated in.

The programs, though, should be open to any company willing to compete openly for those launches and not restricted to the current legacy firms. If, as you claim, their vehicles are vastly superior to the RLVs, they should have nothing to worry about.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 10/15/07 23:58:17

WiseSpacer,

As a consultant to a very-low-cost-per-flight SRLV developer, I am very interested in getting your perspective on how this market space will evolve.

Please e-mail me at james daught muncy a t polispace daught com.

Posted by Jim Muncy at 10/16/07 07:14:39

TopSpacer,

Yes, we won't agree and since your vehicles aren't operational yet you may give them any cost or operational capabilities you need to make a point.

But remember the NASA sounding rocket program is one of the centers of excellence at NASA. Quietly and economically doing its job. It makes no sense to kill it just to profit a handful of entrepreneurs who need some corporate welfare to close their business models.

Next thing you know you will argue that NASA needs to replace its WB-57s with some small business jet just to create jobs for a start-up.

Posted by WiseSpacer at 10/16/07 22:51:21

WiseSpace,
Gee-whiz, I can always point to you last comment as exhibit A in why I find it pointless to try to have rational, grown-up discussions with anonymous commenters who just want to vent. I knew it would go like this but I wanted to expand on what I said in the posting for those readers interested in this topic.

I'm only interested in looking at what are the advantages and disadvantages to suborbital space science apps (and to the testing of space technologies) of a new generation of fully reusable suborbital vehicles that will be coming on line in the next couple of years.

You continually make assertions that are over-the-top and contradictory. It's silly to claim that NASA's suborbital science program will be killed if the agency allows such vehicles to compete for its science flights. This is especially true if, as you have indicated, these vehicles either will never exist or won't perform as promised. If so, then NASA will keep using the same expendables that it always has.

I have never said or implied that NASA should be forced to use the new vehicles if they don't meet the requirements of the missions.

It's quite possible, in fact, that they won't meet the requirements of many or most of the current missions but they may allow for new science apps that are not practical with the current vehicles, e.g. multiple measurements over a short period.

Several times you have claimed that letting these vehicles fly science missions is some sort of "corporate welfare". However, the situation is exactly the opposite. Restricting the program to the current suppliers is protecting them from competition and providing for their welfare.

I will sum up:

Of the issues that you have raised, the most serious shortcoming (so to speak) is with the altitude. However, this might eventually be overcome with the second stages that some of the firms are planning. Also for some apps, multiple low altitude flights can make up for a single high altitude flight.

You have not convinced me that the expendables have any other strong advantages over these new vehicles. Economies of scale with the RLVs (i.e. flying the vehicles for multiple markets) will drive down operational costs and provide for frequent flight opportunites. Many science and engineering test users will also like having the option of more volume and heavier payloads.

NASA being NASA, though, I expect you have little to fear. Just as it keeps raising red herring objections to protect its parabolic aircraft program from competition from ZERO-G, I expect the agency will prevent any changes in the current sounding rocket program for a long, long time regardless of the capabilities of the new vehicles.

You are welcome to the last word and to take your best shot at my evil nature and incompetence. Or you can wait to comment on future postings I make regarding this area.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 10/17/07 00:32:20

Add Comment

Note: HTML code will not work except for bare URLs (i.e. http://www...). Also, for postings older than 1 week, comments are filtered manually to prevent spam and so may not appear for a few days.
Note: Trash talking and name calling, especially in anonymous comments, won't be tolerated.