E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA file
A United Launch Alliance Atlas 5 rocket blasts off with NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory in February 2010.
United Launch Alliance, the venture that sends most of America's robotic spacecraft into orbit and beyond, has struck a deal with NASA to find out what it will take to make ULA's Atlas 5 rocket ready for NASA's astronauts.
No money is changing hands under the terms of NASA's Space Act agreement with United Launch Alliance, announced today. But Ed Mango, NASA's program manager for commercial crew development, said the space agency would study the launch venture's record over the next six to nine months to assess what risks would be involved in launching humans to the International Space Station on the Atlas 5.
United Launch Alliance, meanwhile, will spend "a significant amount of money, ULA internal funds" to make the Atlas system more crew-worthy, said George Sowers, ULA's vice president for business development. United Launch Alliance is a joint venture involving Lockheed Martin (which makes Atlas rockets) and The Boeing Co. (which makes Delta rockets).
ULA launches most of the U.S. military's satellites and U.S. commercial satellites, as well as NASA unmanned probes ranging from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to the Mars rovers and the Pluto-bound New Horizons spacecraft. But NASA has never cleared either the Atlas or the Delta to launch humans into space.
Mango said one reason for that was the space shuttle. As long as the shuttles were flying, there was no need to certify other rockets as having a "human rating." Now that the shuttle era is ending, NASA will have to certify new launch vehicles as well as new spaceships.
"It could have been done years ago ... but from an overall policy for NASA, now is the right time to do it," he told journalists.
The agreement announced today marks just one small step toward human-rating the Atlas 5. NASA and ULA are focusing on that rocket because it's the chosen launch vehicle for two of the companies receiving tens of millions of dollars from the space agency to develop new spaceships — namely, Sierra Nevada Corp. and Blue Origin. Boeing is also considering the Atlas as the initial launch vehicle for its CST-100 commercial spaceship. The fourth company in the NASA-funded commercial spaceship race, SpaceX, plans to use its own Falcon 9 rocket to launch its Dragon capsule.
During NASA's last shuttle mission, Atlantis' astronauts gave the space station's crew members a U.S. flag that had flown aboard the first shuttle mission in 1981 and asked them to keep it safe for the first crew to visit the space station aboard a commercial spacecraft. Mango said NASA was still aiming for that first flight to occur around 2015 — although he acknowledged today that the date was "a little bit soft," due in part to funding concerns. NASA had earlier signaled that $850 million would be set aside for the next phase of the commercial crew development project, but that funding level is under congressional scrutiny.
Sowers contended that the Atlas 5's track record, with 26 straight successful launches, made it a front-runner to carry astronauts in the future — and he said the rocket could be ready by the time any spacecraft was ready to fly on it.
He said the key enhancements yet to be added to the Atlas launch system included an Emergency Detection System, which would monitor the rocket's telemetry for any warning signs, and issue alerts or abort commands to the crew if anything went wrong. NASA gave $6.7 million to ULA during the first phase of the commercial crew development program to work on the detection system, and ULA said it spent another $1.3 million on its prototype test bed.
Sowers also said ULA would work on the infrastructure for getting astronauts on and off an Atlas launch pad.
The next phase of NASA funding for commercial crew is expected to go forward around the middle of next year, and would focus on the integrated design of launch vehicles, spacecraft and mission operations, Mango said. ULA could be in the running for further funding at that time.
Mango emphasized that human-rating certification was still years away — and that such certifications would have to cover complete systems, rather than the rocket and the spaceship separately. Nevertheless, he said today's agreement should be seen as a positive sign for U.S. human spaceflight as the space shuttle program is winding down.
"It's a good day for the commercial crew program ... It's a very good day for ULA, and overall it's a very good day for Americans to know that we're continuing our efforts in space," Mango said.
That sentiment was seconded in a statement from Mango's boss, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.
"I am truly excited about the addition of ULA to NASA's commercial crew development team," Bolden said. "Having ULA on board may speed the development of a commercial crew transportation system for the International Space Station, allowing NASA to concentrate its resources on exploring beyond low-Earth orbit."
Other angles to the deal:
- Sowers noted that the Atlas 5 was also being considered by Bigelow Aerospace, along with Boeing's CST-100 capsule, as the means for carrying passengers to and from the commercial space stations that it's planning to put in orbit in the 2015 time frame.
- Mango noted that ULA's other big rocket, the Delta 4, was being considered as a potential launch vehicle for NASA's Orion crew vehicle, also known as the multipurpose crew vehicle or MPCV. NASA plans to use the Orion for exploration beyond Earth orbit, starting in the 2017-2020 time frame. However, beyond-orbit trips will require the development of a new heavy-lift rocket currently known as the Space Launch System or SLS. The Delta 4 could be used for less ambitious trips — for test flights or trips to the space station, for example. Although ULA's work under the Space Act agreement did not directly apply to the Delta, Sowers said the development of the Emergency Detection System could benefit efforts to win a human rating for the Delta 4 as well.
More perspectives on the post-shuttle era:
- Is the space effort dying, or evolving?
- Boeing runs hard in new space race
- Sierra Nevada chases NASA's dream
- SpaceX chief sets his sights on Mars
- After the shuttle lands, layoffs loom
- Shuttle's legacy: Soaring in orbit and costs
- Gallery: Ten players in the commercial space race
Connect with the Cosmic Logcommunity by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also add me to your Google+ circle, and check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Errrrrrr..................If I'm not mistaken, a "Atlas" is what put John Glenn's behind into orbit. Aboard Friendship 7.
That's what I was thinking - Plus the Gemini Program, I believe.
Errrrrrr..................If I'm not mistaken, a "Atlas" is what put John Glenn's behind into orbit. Aboard Friendship 7.
That was many generations of 'Atlas' ago, Daddy. It's barely the same vehicle anymore. (Ironically enough, Atlas V uses Russian-made engines). Google 'Atlas rocket' and you'll see.
For that matter, the Delta rockets have a heritage going back to the Thor IRBM, but you couldn't really tell that anymore, either...
Also know that Soyuz rides an even more directly descended version of the R-7, their first ICBM and satellite launcher. They have yet to fly men on anything else (though a new spacecraft and launcher [Angara] may be in the offing for them)...
Checking an Atlas 5 for human worthiness is like checking a wheel to see if it can go round and round.
That was an Atlas LV3B, also known as the Atlas D, which is completely different from the current Atlas V. The Atlas D was derived from the Atlas SM65D Air Force ICBM made by Convair, with a lift off thrust of 300,000 pounds. The Atlas V assembled by Lockheed uses Russian RD180 engines with a lift off thrust of 933,400 pounds.
I've changed the photo to show the Atlas 5 that launched the Solar Dynamics Observatory that launched last year.
"human-rating certification [is] still years away": Good nightshirt, how long did it take to man-rate the Atlas (I) + Mercury, Titan II + Gemini, and Saturn V + Apollo? (Not to mention human-rating the Shuttle, which maybe shouldn't have happened...) Granted, standards are probably higher now than during the space race, but I would think the crucial point would be when the Atlas V + capsule, err spaceship, is safer than a Soyuz.
"Human rating" means more than just making sure that it will not blow up or fail to reach orbit. You also have to ensure that the acceleration and vibration are well within what humans can tolerate (which generally results in lower payload capacity as you add shock absorbers and throttle back the engine thrust). For example, the Shuttle's design deliberately limited launch acceleration to three gravities, but an unmanned satellite launcher could experience twenty gravities or more. Retrofitting an already-completed rocket design to carry people is similar in nature to retrofitting a cargo truck to carry passengers--you don't just bolt on some seats and proclaim that it's as good as if it were designed from the ground up to carry them.
these writers suck , don't tell you any facts and it seems to me NASA is still great at pissing away time and money. Russian engines , wtf china doesn't have any we could buy at walmart ??? this country is on borrowed time
these writers need to be human rated . whos the money behind ULA ? so its government money once removed.
Terrific!
6.7 million for a glorified radar system? Seriously?
Finally! It's about time NASA showed some sense and picked the Atlas V. I'm tired of watching SpaceX, that new kid on the block get all the applause. Yes, the Atlas V uses Russian engines, but the RD-180 is a very, very good engine, and it is throttlable, which is practically unique in heavy launchers. It gives the Atlas V unmatched mission flexibility and performance. It is not a cheap rocket, by any means, but it is still the best and most dependable heavy booster in America today, by far. And that's coming from a former ULA employee, so of course I'm not biased.
ok, now fast track the program or get a nasa director that will. It really would of been nice to have more background on ULA in the article, but google is not far away, I am sure google thanks the crew at msnbc. This (certification) should of been done or at least seriously considered two years ago. Is that not why test pilots get more money than non-test pilots? To test things? Meanwhile, does anyone have the feeling that the left hand is clueless that there is even a right hand? Here's an even better idea, some commercial company will eventually get tired of all the bs and politicalization in the american space biz and will set up shop in mexico and make a profit launching humans into space while we dribble over which conglomerate is gonna get the big government contracts...I say bullwhachy....pass the free space access law and anyone with the gusto and guts can just haul thier rocket down to KSC or wallops or wherever we can give them ample range and let em pull the release pin, no fees no big shot regulators no nuthin....just yankee ingunuity at it's damned best...something that is apparently hated inside the beltway. THink about it, Mexico is waiting for their space program to get underway and I'm passed the point of lauging at this countrys ecstasy of fumbling.
Why can't all these competitors pool their efforts and finance a commercial manned space launch to prove to the doubters that it can be done. Then the money for further flights would flow in. I am sure that if you called for private donations from the public for this you would get a robust response.
The United Launch Alliance is Boeing and Lockheed-Martin.
And that's quite enough 'pooling.' There's no one right way to build a rocket, everyone has different design philosophies, some will be better at some things than others, nothing will be perfect at everything. You, as a customer, only care that it's good enough and cheap enough for what you want.
"I am sure that if you called for private donations from the public for this you would get a robust response."
These aren't charities. If you believe in those companies, invest in them, at least in the ones that are publicly held.
Buy American.. wait, we don't make anything anymore. I guess we'll have to wait for a foreign boat to get here so I can buy a couple new coffee cups. Seriously people... we can't even make our own coffee cups anymore? ... As a descendent of the original colonists that came here, this is a disgrace. Problem is, we would probably still be making coffee cups today if the companies that produced them didn't get hammered by a greedy system.
Although I fully support the commercialization of manned space, there should be independent national access to LEO. Think an orbital Coast Guard. The Air Force has been flying the unmanned X-37B which, if I recall, is based on a NASA design for a ISS Crew Return Vehicle and was launched on an Atlas V. Could we develop that into a manned launch system?
Unfortunately, our technology suffers from the same malaise as the rest of American Consumer Culture : use it, and dispose of it.
Anyone else think it's kind of wierd, the way the space program is headed? I mean we start with rockets, then slowly move into shuttles, and now we're back to rockets, what's up with that? Shouldn't the next step have been a space vehical that's a step up from the shuttles? At this rate the first human landing on another planet will take place in 20never. Like it or not, the shuttles worked, and did a great job, now I think it's time we take the next step and move ahead, not take a step back and rely on a vehical that we've already made out dated. Bring on the Star ships, and other syfy craft, let's build something advanced instead of using rocket tech.
"I mean we start with rockets, then slowly move into shuttles, and now we're back to rockets, what's up with that?"
Um, Space Shuttles are rockets.
Now, I wish it wasn't ballistic capsules on ELVs either, but they are much better, cheaper technology than ballistics-on-expendable of the past And cheaper, as people carriers, than the Shuttle was. On the other hand, Dream chaser (and X-37) is a winged reusable orbiter on the Atlas V ELV, so it's not quite as far back as you think...
But from the looks of things, a new RLV will have to be a completely commercial venture, as NASA doesn't seem to have it in itself to do a seriously cost-cutting RLV.
"Bring on the Star ships, and other syfy craft..."
Ugh That's 'sci-fi' (which I don't like much either, most of fandom calls science fiction 'SF,' but it's still preferable to that altered network name), and (barring some unforeseeable breakthrough) I think you can leave starships out of your thinking for the remainder of this century, no matter how well things develop. Hell, I'd be grateful to see us reach a '2001' level of capability...fortunately, that is still doable.
The shuttle was an experiment that coupled the Apollo mission with the then current day aeronautical engineering. Going back to the Apollo program will allow for cheaper and safer delivery of cargo and crew into space while engineers go back through the Shuttle that has been aquired duringthe Shuttle Programs lifetime to build a better and more cost efficient next generation Shuttle II Program from.
Look for the Shuttle Program to return better than ever under the Shuttle II Program.
I still think a space elevator is the way to go. 24/7 up & down