Should we wait to build a heavy lift rocket???

Graphic courtesy of NASA. Image depicts the
heavy lift rocket Ares V which is built largely
from existing Space Shuttle technology.

Space News recently reported of an August 19th meeting between NASA Commercial Crew Planning Lead Phil McAlister and a group of space industry executives where he pledged that regardless of what Congress does, NASA will be able to provide the $5.8 billion in funding to keep the commercial crew “space taxi” programs in place (click for article). While this is certainly welcome news to both companies such as SpaceX and Orbital, it is also welcome news to those of us who believe that pedestrian deliveries to the International Space Station can best be provided by NASA supervised commercial contractors.

What was troubling about this article however was a blurb inserted in the final paragraphs that quoted some group called the “Planetary Society.” This group has sent an open letter to legislators suggesting that they support the Obama plan to not build a heavy lift rocket until a extra orbital destination is decided upon. This is just ridiculous on its face. There are only a very few possible destinations for the cargo of an Saturn V or Ares V class heavy lift rocket and the one thing that they have in common is the fact that to get there, you need a heavy lift rocket. The rocket does nothing more than put large payloads into Earth orbit. What that payload does once it is up there has next to nothing to do with the rocket itself.

Image courtesy of NASA. Image depicts
the heavy lift rockets Saturn V on the
left and the Ares V on the right. To the
right of the Space Shuttle is the crew
carrying Ares I

This nation needs a heavy lift rocket to serve whatever purpose may arise. That purpose may be nothing more than putting large payloads into low Earth orbit, and there is nothing wrong with that. The rest of the world, and by that I mean Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, etc., seems intent upon becoming space-faring societies. I find it impossible to believe that the United States is so willing to cede the high ground to other nations when we currently enjoy such a huge technological advantage. Does anyone believe that any of these nations would be as dedicated toward peace and cooperation in space as the United States has been over the years? Has anyone looked at the distribution of the building and operational costs associated with the “international” space station?

A heavy lift rocket is a heavy lift rocket. While it certainly cannot be considered to be a heavy lift vehicle in the mold of a Saturn V, the much deserved retirement of the Space Shuttle has left the United States with no way to put large payloads into orbit. Do we as a country want to wait on politicians and NASA administrators (not sure that they are all that different) to decide on a extra-orbital destination before we build the capability to put large payloads into LEO? I personally cannot imagine why we should do that.

White Knight Two Gear Collapse

Stock photo courtesy of Virgin Galactic. Photo does not
depict the White Knight Vehicle during the flight 37
landing gear incident.

While Scaled Composites has not yet published the details of White Knight Two test flights 36 and 37, apparently flight 37 ended with a port side landing gear problem and apparent collapse (see photo below). The left fuselage on WK2 that contains the port side landing gear is not currently equipped to carry passengers or pilots. Scaled has provided very few details of the incident but has referred to the incident as minor and that there were no injuries to the crew. They also report that it was not a captive carry flight and as such, SS2 was not involved.

Given the fact that they seem to be practicing for the first glide flight of SS2, it is likely that they were performing various sorts of SS2 approaches and perhaps discovered a weakness in the WK2 landing gear design. If this is the case, then it is a good thing that this happened on a non-SS2 carrying flight. It is also a good thing that they have flown 34 non-SS2 test flights to discover these weaknesses. Hopefully the solution to the problem will not involve a major re-design of the landing gear.

Photo courtesy of FlightGlobal.com.

Given Scaled's proven ability to make rapid changes and repairs to their vehicles, it seems likely that barring a major re-design, this incident will present not much more than a short delay in the SS2 development process.

If this incident shows nothing else though, it does show the advantage of a 4 post landing gear design. The failure of any one still leaves three. I assume that elevator, aileron, and rudder authority are sufficient to keep the airframe from contacting the ground at all but the lowest airspeeds.