Orion Crew Size

[J.McDonald]

For several months now there has been interent chatter and rumour about a reduction in the initial operational capability of Orion on ISS missions, from six to four.
An article has now appeared that gives some weight to these rumours:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/FOUR042209.xml&headline=Weight%20Forcing%20NASA%20To%20Shrink%20Orion%20Crew&channel=space

[J.McDonald]

And another!

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/04/this_flight_has_been_oversold.html

[woods170]

For several months now there has been interent chatter and rumour about a reduction in the initial operational capability of Orion on ISS missions, from six to four.
An article has now appeared that gives some weight to these rumours:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/FOUR042209.xml&headline=Weight%20Forcing%20NASA%20To%20Shrink%20Orion%20Crew&channel=space

According to an article run on NSF this morning that decision has already been made. Apparantly, it's no longer a rumour, but a fact.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/04/refining-constellations-roadmap-2015-hanley-proposes-major-changes/

[Rick]

I guess I would add, is anyone surprised? Growing pains are evident. When reading further into the story it is also noted the 6 man option is being protected for the future.

I add this, as it appears to be left out of this discussion

[JimMcDade]

Rick, It was intentionally left out of the discussion. Telling only part of the story, in particular the part that helps create bias in favor of the teller's opinions, is an ancient propaganda ploy. The Obama administration is currently doing the same thing with the CIA torture scandal.

[Rick]

Well, leaving Obama out of the discussion, I generally always give a person the benefit of the doubt.

Whether it was left out intentionally, or accidentally, it was prudent to include the missing piece I believe, as the thread topic indicates, the issue is not as severe as it has been presented.

[J.McDonald]

I find it interesting that when Me2 made these claims on this site a few months ago they were called 'baseless', yet here is confirmation. I have seen the exact same process happen with the Ares I-X launch slip, and further back in time the sixth engine on Ares-V and hte deletion of Orion land landing also started as 'baseless rumours'.

So I'm sitting tight waiting to see what happens with the next rumours:
- switch to regen RS68 or SSME on Ares-V
- deletion of recovery systems from SRBs (possibly on both vehicles)
- review of whole CxP and ESAS assumptions

[Rick]

John,
The confirmation is from Chris Bergen's story. I am not saying its true, not true or partially true. What I am saying is that 'baseless' to me means, leaked information, rumors etc, and not an official release. Me2 hears things, I hear things, but I do not consider it a non baseless situation, when information is transferred by word of mouth.


Sorry for the above, but I am trying to maintain the credibility of my website at a minimum and bring just a bit of objectivity to the discussion. I am talking about me alone, and not other posters, who are free to speak their minds, even if it is rumor.

[Rick]

Since we are on the topic. Here's a picture of an Orion CM in the desert.

[Me2]

John,
The confirmation is from Chris Bergen's story. I am not saying its true, not true or partially true. What I am saying is that 'baseless' to me means, leaked information, rumors etc, and not an official release. .

Program documentation precedes PR releases by months. PR releases are afterthoughts.

[JimMcDade]

In the end, this "crew size" aspect of the anti-Ares I claims is inconsequential over the long-term. Gemini was supposed to return to Earth by landing on hard ground with the Rogallo wing. That never happened, but the Gemini program is still considered very successful. That Gemini MMU plan did not work out very well either. In big programs, plans do change over time. Stuff gets subtracted, stuff gets added. That's reality.

In the final analysis, "program documentation" has not, and does not now, indicate the demise of Ares I. That's also reality.

[Rick]

As an FYI, I was not considering press releases in my last post.

[JimMcDade]

Me2, If you are indeed a NASA engineer, surely you are aware that NASA security, and lots of other institutions, have access to computer forensics tools that can lead them to the identity of anonymous posters.

[Me2]

Gemini was supposed to return to Earth by landing on hard ground with the Rogallo wing. That never happened, but the Gemini program is still considered very successful.

That Gemini MMU plan did not work out very well either. In big programs, plans do change over time. Stuff gets subtracted, stuff gets added. That's reality.


Apples and oranges. On Gemini, we were learning rocket science. CxP is an operational program and using known processes and analysis.

MMU was a test project, it has no bearing to anything on CxP.

[Me2]

Me2, If you are indeed a NASA engineer, surely you are aware that NASA security, and lots of other institutions, have access to computer forensics tools that can lead them to the identity of anonymous posters.

So what. I haven't done anything wrong and why should they care. I mostly post from home

[Rick]

Apples and oranges. On Gemini, we were learning rocket science.

In actuality Me2, Gemini was practicing and perfecting rendezvous and docking in preparation for the Apollo program. Throw spacewalking practice and technique in there too as well.

Those where the goals of Geminim not the learning of rocket science.

[J.McDonald]

In the end, this "crew size" aspect of the anti-Ares I claims is inconsequential over the long-term. Gemini was supposed to return to Earth by landing on hard ground with the Rogallo wing. That never happened, but the Gemini program is still considered very successful. That Gemini MMU plan did not work out very well either. In big programs, plans do change over time. Stuff gets subtracted, stuff gets added. That's reality.

In the final analysis, "program documentation" has not, and does not now, indicate the demise of Ares I. That's also reality.


AFAIK, the Gemini Rogallo wing was a research effort that took a bit longer than expected to get working. The Gemini progrm was short and completed its other goals before the wing was ready. It wasn't important enough a project to continue lfying Gemini just to test it- there were bigger fish to fry.

To be honest, if this were a crash program to replace STS withou a gap, I wouldn't really mind the reduction in crew size. So long as the ISS can have a crew of six there's no problem. I don't think the Russians are going to abandon it any time soon so even a three man Orion would do the job. Plus, fingers crossed, Dragon might be a reality by then anyway.

What I do take exception to is that how CxP is failing on all three counts: schedule, cost, performance. You'd think that you could have one or two of these items stay on track, but, alas, that doesn't seem possible. IMHO schedule is the biggest disappointment. I can't really get behind a program whose IOC has slipped from 2011 to at least 2015 (and maybe more like 2017 if you believe what you hear).

Do I believe what I hear? Actually, yes, I do, because over the last couple of years of following the program I have seen 'rumours' come up, be denied by NASA, and then confirmed later. It is also my experience that Me2 has been amongst the first to know about these matters. But you still can't treat them as gospel, obviously.

[Me2]

In actuality Me2, Gemini was practicing and perfecting rendezvous and docking in preparation for the Apollo program. Throw spacewalking practice and technique in there too as well.

Those where the goals of Gemini not the learning of rocket science.

That is exactly want I mean.
The goals of Gemini and perfecting rendezvous and docking equate to learning "rocket science"

"Rocket Science" just doesn't cover launch vehicles

[JimMcDade]

J. McDonald and Me2, There are two good reasons why I remain skeptical of claims that Ares I will never fly, as some have claimed here and on other web sites.

1- The "schedule, cost, performance" shortcomings (that J McDonald referenced) fit the historical booster development pattern that goes all the way back to Peenemunde. The "schedule, cost, performance" complaint/prediction could be accurately applied, in advance, to any of the major US space projects including the LM, the Saturn V second stage, STS, and on and on and on. Whenever NASA or any other government agency sets out to do something, it always runs late, costs are more than expected, and it does not perform as well as was hoped ( at least at the start).

Inevitably, the original proposals and plans are always overly optimistic and the cost projections are always intentionally low. The bogus projections and estimates are part of the standard strategy for getting the green light from Congress and the White House to start a new project. Planners of such programs are always confident that they can go back to Congress and the White House and get more money and/or more time. That's all SOP.

In the end, the claims of Me2 and others are examples of someone simply predicting or "revealing" the easily predictable.

What if it turns out that they are right and Ares I is canceled? Would they deserve credit for trying to be whistle-blowers? Absolutely not. Was I wrong to challenge their claims, as presented? Absolutely not.

The more extreme Ares I detractors have not done enough to be portrayed as heroes. They are not even mildly admirable snitches. If the turn of events goes against Ares I, it should be pointed out that they chose to hide behind anonymous handles while their nation wasted billions of dollars and lost years of potential progress in space exploration. They risked absolutely nothing to stop a national tragedy in the making.

They are the opposites of people like John Houbolt and Daniel Ellsberg. Not a single man or woman on the inside of Ares I development has demonstrated the courage to call a press conference or risk their personal freedom by following Ellsberg's historical example when he realized that the his country was waging a kind of war that it could not possibly win. The Ares I detractors say that the lives of astronauts are at risk, yet they would apparently rather see astronauts die than assume the personal risks that come with doing something substantial to stop the madness that they perceive.

I can assure any real dissenters within the program that no judge or jury is going to jail an honest, genuine NASA whistle-blower who demonstrates tremendous courage in revealing corruption and helping his country do things the right way.

The media stories about Ares I troubles have been terribly weak and poorly supported with facts. Popular Mechanics, NSF, and the Orlando Sentinel ran with the Jupiter Direct contentions without ever obtaining the equivalent of Ellsberg's leaked, "United States-Vietnam Relations 1945-67". Those editors ran their stories with nothing but vitriolic claims, an independently generated Adobe Acrobat Reader document, and a few out-of-context PowerPoint slides in their grasp.

2- Anybody, and I mean anybody can hide behind a posting alias and claim anything about anything without risking any consequences and without any substantial proof. I don't think NASA is cutting a payroll check for anybody named Me2, so we have no idea who you are, no way of verifying where you work, and no way to discover what your actual role is.

I have caught a lot of flak for challenging the claims of anonymous posters, but at least I lay my real name on the line. I don't mind the insults and the claims that I don't know what I am talking about, but how can anybody know that some anonymous claim made on the internet has any value whatsoever?

I am a big boy. I am prepared to face the consequences and criticism if I am wrong, but it is cowardly to hide behind some internet alias and label their boss and other individuals as liars and cheats. In reality, I can't be wrong. I am not the one who issues startling claims and incriminating remarks. All I ever wanted was honest, up-front, verification of those claims against NASA and Ares I. Anonymous claims and reports from somebody who knows somebody on the inside don't cut it.

The burden of proof is on the accusers, not me. I don't have access to the numbers and engineering models. Me2 and his pals have never offered up verifiable numbers or engineering models that would confirm the claims about deadly oscillations, launch drift, or column buckling. I have seen a piece of actual Ares I structure used in structural load testing, but I did not witness the actual test. I do not have any reason, other than those internet claims from anonymous experts and the echoes from impassioned cynics who don't trust NASA with a bottle rocket, to not beleive what the Marshall guy told me about those test results.

[Me2]

J. McDonald and Me2, There are two good reasons why I remain skeptical of claims that Ares I will never fly, as some have claimed here and on other web sites.

1- The "schedule, cost, performance" shortcomings (that J McDonald referenced) fit the historical booster development pattern that goes all the way back to Peenemunde. The "schedule, cost, performance" complaint/prediction could be accurately applied, in advance, to any of the major US space projects including the LM, the Saturn V second stage, STS, and on and on and on.

2. I have caught a lot of flak for challenging the claims of anonymous posters, but at least I lay my real name on the line. I don't mind the insults and claims that I don't know what I am talking about, but how can anybody know that some anonymous claim is has any value whatsoever?



1. You are totally offbase here. That shouldn't be happening. Saturn vehicles are not valid comparisons. We were learning rocket science when the Saturn were being developed, that is no longer applicable. STS was trying to do resuability. Ares I is only a simple launch vehicle, something that has been done over and over. It isn't developing new technology, it isn't breaking new ground. It isn't that hard. Boeing and LM developed two new vehicles, 3 launch pads, and a new factory for 3 billion. Spacex is doing it also for less too. This is really bad that Spacex is doing better than MSFC. Ares I is going to cost over 13 billions dollars to replicate existing capabilities with a marginal vehicle

2. Because you are a nobody. You aren't in the business

You don't know what you are talking about. You give an impression than you know something but when it comes down to it, you only can spout NASA PR and prop up the bad engineers at MSFC

[J.McDonald]

In the end, the claims of Me2 and others are examples of someone simply predicting or "revealing" the easily predictable.
No, that's not true.
What I've been referring to is specific claims made by Me2 and others with inside knowledge, which get pounded as being 'baseless' but turn out to be true. Like you, Jim, I was sceptical of these claims to begin with, but I see a pattern.
Everybody could have predicted that Ares would run late and over budget. But it takes a connection within the program to be able to claim, and be proved correct, on specific matters like number of engines, crew size, or launch dates.


What if it turns out that they are right and Ares I is canceled? Would they deserve credit for trying to be whistle-blowers? Absolutely not. Was I wrong to challenge their claims, as presented? Absolutely not.
So... IIUC... detractors should put up and shut up even if they have real information that the program is failing?
Did you ever watch the video about management attitudes at JSC?


The more extreme Ares I detractors have not done enough to be portrayed as heroes. They are not even mildly admirable snitches. If the turn of events goes against Ares I, it should be pointed out that they chose to hide behind anonymous handles while their nation wasted billions of dollars and lost years of potential progress in space exploration. They risked absolutely nothing to stop a national tragedy in the making.
This is an interesting insight into how you view these things, Jim. I don;t know if any of the 'whistleblowers' actually require 'hero' status.
Further, have Danny Deger's comments about management attitudes not made any impression on you whatsoever? His is not an isolated case.

[JimMcDade]

Me2, Keep the arrogant, personal insults coming. Your behavior is revealing. It does not matter if I am in the business or outside of the business. The many professional brokers who bought into Madoff were "in the business", and they fell hook, line, and sinker. The engineers behind many an engineering disaster were certainly "in the business". Sometimes, it takes a complete outsider to see what should be obvious to the insiders. Fact checking is often a business independent process. Sometimes, it is a nobody that stumbles onto the truth. Further, we still don't know if you are in the business since you hide behind a clever handle.

The background experience of the Saturn vehicle development teams was more diverse and substantial than that of many in the Ares I and Ares V teams. Those engineers certainly had the opportunity to worked on a greater variety of engines and designs in their day. Rocket building was already an established industry when the Saturn V contracts were let. The big differences with Saturn V were primarily scalar in nature.

Now, let's look at the actual story at hand. The Orion crew compliment reduction story is actually unrelated to the power or structural strength of Ares I. This fact is contrary to any perception that you possess bona fide information prior to the press releases. When did you mention parachutes and Orion impact velocity with two parachutes? This recent development is also being misrepresented by the anti-Ares conspiracy theorists as they desperately attempt to sustain their cherished hoax. It's just more misinformation from the rag-tag propaganda ministry of Ares I haters.

The Orion weight problem (a mere 200 pounds) has no connection whatsoever to the Ares I. The weight issue is connected to the desire to return to earth on land with the parachutes in the event that only two of the three parachutes deploy.

A further fact check: Obviously, Orion has NOT been permanently limited to a crew compliment of four. The parachute issue will continue to be worked according to Orion program leader Jeff Hanley.