House rubber stamps NASA Policy

[Rick]

Possibly. An HLV is still viable for SLS a year later.

[camelopardalis]

Me2,

• You sounds like a Human-Rated Delta IV Heavy is already COTS. It is estimated to take at least 3.5 to 5 years to get the Delta IV-H certified. This effectively means re-design hardware, software, procedures. So just like an new SRB it will need multiple test runs.
• At the moment you may be right about costs but my far most concern for HSF is safety. The Constellation program has HSF-safety in its roots (10 times safer than the shuttle) The design team used a valid paradigm, "keep is simple" and decided a solid as first stage is the way to go.
• To put an Orion crew module on top of a Delta IV-H and to consider swapping the RL-10 for a J2X in the plans that are currently discussed proves the sanity of the original Constellation design decisions.
• In the past months we have seen how the culture of the NASA changed in the 25 years since Challenger. The team effort made to not only repair ET-137 but find root cause and flight rationale is proof of a HSF-certified team, lead by safety-aware managers. This excelent and motivated team is now dismantled. The current culture will be replaced by a more commercial and probably in the future more political influenced decission proces. I'm convinced safety will have to compete with economics and status again.
• And last but not least, a Delta IV-HEAVY will not have the esthetics of a slim Ares-I vehicle At least agree on this last point

[Me2]

Me2,

• 1.
• You sounds like a Human-Rated Delta IV Heavy is already COTS. It is estimated to take at least 3.5 to 5 years to get the Delta IV-H certified. This effectively means re-design hardware, software, procedures. So just like an new SRB it will need multiple test runs.
  2.
• At the moment you may be right about costs but my far most concern for HSF is safety. The Constellation program has HSF-safety in its roots (10 times safer than the shuttle) The design team used a valid paradigm, "keep is simple" and decided a solid as first stage is the way to go.
  3.
• To put an Orion crew module on top of a Delta IV-H and to consider swapping the RL-10 for a J2X in the plans that are currently discussed proves the sanity of the original Constellation design decisions.
  4.
• In the past months we have seen how the culture of the NASA changed in the 25 years since Challenger. The team effort made to not only repair ET-137 but find root cause and flight rationale is proof of a HSF-certified team, lead by safety-aware managers. This excelent and motivated team is now dismantled. The current culture will be replaced by a more commercial and probably in the future more political influenced decission proces. I'm convinced safety will have to compete with economics and status again.
  5.
• And last but not least, a Delta IV-HEAVY will not have the esthetics of a slim Ares-I vehicle At least agree on this last point

1. Those are bogus numbers provided by the pro Ares camp. OSP was going to do quicker and cheaper. As for test runs, the changes can be tested on satellite delivery launches.
2. Ares I safety is not 10 times safer than the shuttle. But add an LAS to any vehicle and it will be safer than the shuttle. And Ares design paradigm was not keep it simple, it was use existing people and facilities to keep 10 healthy centers. "radius block stiffeners" is the opposite of keeping it simple. It means the design is poor. Ares I will not fly enough times to make the design safety factor meaningful. Process factors have a greater influence on reliability (safety) than design reliability due to the low number of flights. As for "costs", again Ares I is not worth the extra billions for the minor increase .4% in design safety. Also, why do launch vehicles have to be safer for gov't NASA astronauts. Commercial vehicle will be carrying commercial astronauts and they will not be meeting the silly requirements for Ares I. Any ways, NASA manned rating requirements had to be relaxed for Ares I.
3. You could not be more wrong. There is no consideration for using the J-2 with the Delta IV and it is not doable. And it has nothing to do with original Constellation design decisions , it is totally independent. Actually, J-2 is the second choice, a poor runner up, the SSME was the first choice.
4. Wrong,
A. The fact that the wrong material got into the vehicle shows that there is a problem. If it wasn't for a GUCP problem, with a scrub, this problem would have gone unseen and might have caused some inflight problems
B. Changing out the ET should be the decision.
C. As Griffin
5. Actually, it is the opposite. Ares I is an ugly vehicle, it has the wrong proportions and looks more like the German "Potato Masher" hand grenade.

[Rick]

You realize Me2 that if your posts weren't filled with obvious bias, your thoughts would carry a lot more weight to those reading them.

[Me2]

You realize Me2 that if your posts weren't filled with obvious bias, your thoughts would carry a lot more weight to those reading them.

It isn't bias, it is the truth and engineering fact.

[camelopardalis]

1. Those are bogus numbers provided by the pro Ares camp. OSP was going to do quicker and cheaper. As for test runs, the changes can be tested on satellite delivery launches.
2. Ares I safety is not 10 times safer than the shuttle. But add an LAS to any vehicle and it will be safer than the shuttle. And Ares design paradigm was not keep it simple, it was use existing people and facilities to keep 10 healthy centers. "radius block stiffeners" is the opposite of keeping it simple. It means the design is poor. Ares I will not fly enough times to make the design safety factor meaningful. Process factors have a greater influence on reliability (safety) than design reliability due to the low number of flights. As for "costs", again Ares I is not worth the extra billions for the minor increase .4% in design safety. Also, why do launch vehicles have to be safer for gov't NASA astronauts. Commercial vehicle will be carrying commercial astronauts and they will not be meeting the silly requirements for Ares I. Any ways, NASA manned rating requirements had to be relaxed for Ares I.
3. You could not be more wrong. There is no consideration for using the J-2 with the Delta IV and it is not doable. And it has nothing to do with original Constellation design decisions , it is totally independent. Actually, J-2 is the second choice, a poor runner up, the SSME was the first choice.
4. Wrong,
A. The fact that the wrong material got into the vehicle shows that there is a problem. If it wasn't for a GUCP problem, with a scrub, this problem would have gone unseen and might have caused some inflight problems
B. Changing out the ET should be the decision.
C. As Griffin
5. Actually, it is the opposite. Ares I is an ugly vehicle, it has the wrong proportions and looks more like the German "Potato Masher" hand grenade.

• June 2009, "Human-Rated Delta IV Heavy Study, Constellation Architecture Impacts" NASA Launch Systems Division, David A. Bearden et All. pro Ares??
• If you don't have the drive to "boldly go where no one has gone before" and stay in LEO, OSP would have been a viable, cheaper option to visit ISS. Mankind had more ambition and came up with Constellation.
• So the Nov 2005, "NASA's Exploration Systems Architecture Study, Final Report" is in your opinion 752 pages of biast amateur reading, written by some amateur rocket scientists?
• OK, Delta IV launch is never scrubbed to fix technical problems and never needed modifications.
  In fact all launch vehicles are complex machines that work on the edge of technology. It is just the fact that they did not change out the ET, but had the processes and skills in place to find root cause as they did that shows its the right team with the right procedures for HSF.
• HSF is all about balancing ambition with cost and safety.
  We will probably never agree about the right balance.

[Me2]

• 1. June 2009, "Human-Rated Delta IV Heavy Study, Constellation Architecture Impacts" NASA Launch Systems Division, David A. Bearden et All. pro Ares??
• 2. If you don't have the drive to "boldly go where no one has gone before" and stay in LEO, OSP would have been a viable, cheaper option to visit ISS. Mankind had more ambition and came up with Constellation.
• 3. So the Nov 2005, "NASA's Exploration Systems Architecture Study, Final Report" is in your opinion 752 pages of biast amateur reading, written by some amateur rocket scientists?
• 4. OK, Delta IV launch is never scrubbed to fix technical problems and never needed modifications.
  In fact all launch vehicles are complex machines that work on the edge of technology. It is just the fact that they did not change out the ET, but had the processes and skills in place to find root cause as they did that shows its the right team with the right procedures for HSF.
• 5. HSF is all about balancing ambition with cost and safety.
  We will probably never agree about the right balance.

1. All. pro Ares?? most definitively. The study was paid for by the Ares and Constellation program.

2. No, you can not make that conclusion. OSP would have been a stepping stone. OSP could have evolved into a CEV. Also, we would not have a HSF gap if OSP continued. Mankind can not afford Constellation nor is it NASA's or the US Gov't job to set up a lunar base.

3. Yes, on many counts. a. The results of the "study" was predetermined. B. 90 days is too short for such a study. c. It was wrong on many things; SSME and 4 segement SRM for Ares I, Orion weight and diameter, Ares V size,etc. d. Stiedel's spirals were the right way. It was pay as you go. e. MSFC doesn't have launch vehicle experts anymore, they are in industry.

4. No, they take boosters down vs holding to schedule pressures. That is the problem, it is not completely known that root cause is not evident elsewhere. There was an escape.

5. There was no balancing in the first places. Just bogus numbers being thrown out there. NASA HSF doesn't know anything about safety anyways, much less cost. balancing ambition with cost and safety is done all the time in industry, see airlines. If, no better, Since the FAA is going to allow commercial astronauts to flight on commercial vehicles what makes NASA astronauts more precious than anyone else.

[klydemorris]

@Me2

>>3. Yes, on many counts. a. The results of the "study" was predetermined. B. 90 days is too short for such a study.<<

I always love this one... ESAS was invalid, BUT Augustine, which was equally or perhaps even more skewed, is golden... because it gave the results those of Me2's ilk wanted to hear.

[Me2]

@Me2

I always love this one... ESAS was invalid, BUT Augustine, which was equally or perhaps even more skewed, is golden... because it gave the results those of Me2's ilk wanted to hear.

Only someone from the unwashed masses would think that. Augustine used data collected over years and was validated.

The end result would have happened no matter who was in office. CxP was going to collapse.

The end did not justify the means.

[klydemorris]

Me2-You see any program that does not put a paycheck in your own pocket as being flawed and invalid plus a waste. I know- I've read your venom all over the net.

[Me2]

Me2-You see any program that does not put a paycheck in your own pocket as being flawed and invalid plus a waste. I know- I've read your venom all over the net.

So what about the venom, it is well deserved and not misplaced.

Spacehab was flawed and put a paycheck in my pocket, but I left.

Shuttle was flawed and put a paycheck in my pocket so I left.

CXP was flawed so I avoided it.

[JimMcDade]

Richard Nixon is laughing in his grave. His flawed Space Shuttle decision is finally bringing US human spaceflight to an end. John Holdren is calling the shots for now and he is not going to allow any NASA administrator to propose anything close to a significant exploration program. We have witnessed, in effect,the cancellation of NASA human spaceflight. The opponents of Constellation were played like a $1.00 harmonica by this White House.