 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / July 2009New Astronauts..
So there are another 9. Looking at the short descriptions, I was strucck by the following. Military, pentagon, CIA and flight surgeons. Hmm, so not a lot of outsiders there then... Brian  SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > So there are another 9. Looking at the short descriptions, I was strucck > by the following. > > Military, pentagon, CIA and flight surgeons. > > Hmm, so not a lot of outsiders there then... And the post in sci.space.news on the subject doesn't say what qualifications they have; just that they have "degrees" from various institutions. The CIA one is.... bemusing.... to say the least. I heard Tom Jones of the class of 1990 was CIA. Danny Deger >> So there are another 9. Looking at the short descriptions, I was strucck >> by the following. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > qualifications they have; just that they have "degrees" from various > institutions. The CIA one is.... bemusing.... to say the least. Well, maybe its an attempt to get an office in space? Actually I imagine the CIA do lots of other stuff besides the things they are infamous for, but it did seem a very strange post with half baked incomplete info. I'm waiting for the day when they say things like. Worked as check out girl in Tesco. Brian SignatureBrian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! >I heard Tom Jones of the class of 1990 was CIA. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> qualifications they have; just that they have "degrees" from various >> institutions. The CIA one is.... bemusing.... to say the least. >I heard Tom Jones of the class of 1990 was CIA. "heard"? As if it's a secret! He wrote about that in his book "Skywalking". Don't just take my word for it, read it in the "Editorial Reviews" section on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Sky-Walking-Astronauts-Thomas-Jones/dp/0060884363/ref=sr_1 _3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246402341&sr=8-3 Glen Overby > Military, pentagon, CIA and flight surgeons. > > Hmm, so not a lot of outsiders there then... ...and not a single geologist in the bunch. "What's old is new again." >> Military, pentagon, CIA and flight surgeons. >> >> Hmm, so not a lot of outsiders there then... >> > ...and not a single geologist in the bunch. "What's old is new again." It's a bit early to train geologists for a program that hasn't been made official yet; only Ares 1 has been approved and with all the problems that's causing, designing and building the Ares V will take twice as long as they suggest. >It's a bit early to train geologists for a program that hasn't been made >official yet; only Ares 1 has been approved and with all the problems that's >causing, designing and building the Ares V will take twice as long as they >suggest. Assuming Ares I ever sees the light of day, I think its is entirely possible Ares V will have a markedly easier development period. No Five Segment SRB to develop, no J-2X to develop... Ares I is doing that grunt work. No vibration or oscillation problems (handled the same way Shuttle does.) Engines straight from Improved Delta IV, which will long be flying by then. It really will be an integration effort, with few newly designed parts. We should abandon Ares I and go straight to Ares V. Build an Ares V-Lite for early crew flights, using existing SRB and SSMEs, standard diameter ET, and no upper stage. Get flying ASAP and leave the upper stage and J-2X for Phase II circa 2020. Save the wider core and Five Segment SRB, and their requisite new launch facilities for Phase III (Mars) circa 2030. Of course, this vehicle is essentially DIRECT's "Jupiter", or one of various NLS designs from the early 90s. Brian > Assuming Ares I ever sees the light of day, I think its is entirely > possible Ares V will have a markedly easier development period. No [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Brian We don't need "Ares V Lite" as you call it; Delta IV Heavy can handle ISS missions with Orion. As for abandoning Ares 1, I agree completely - it's a waste of time, effort and money when Delta IV Heavy is already available; however, going straight to Ares V would simply transfer all the current development problems to that vehicle instead - no saving whatsoever. Using SSME's would simply increase costs - two separate development programs and SSME's are much more expensive than RS-68s. If you want ASAP ISS access, Delta IV Heavy is the way to go. > Using SSME's would simply increase costs - two separate development programs > and SSME's are much more expensive than RS-68s. If you want ASAP ISS > access, Delta IV Heavy is the way to go. Is there a way to get an educated and relatively unbiased opinion on how difficult it would be to man-rate Delta IV Heavy ? >> Using SSME's would simply increase costs - two separate development >> programs [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is there a way to get an educated and relatively unbiased opinion on how > difficult it would be to man-rate Delta IV Heavy ? Man rating is quite literally as easy, or as hard, as NASA wants it to be. Note that the shuttle isn't "man rated" by the standards which NASA itself has used to claim that Delta IV Heavy would be expensive to man rate. I have a sneaking suspicion that Mercury, Gemini, and even Apollo might not be qualified as "man rated" under NASA's currently proposed rules. In other words, there is a huge double standard at work here. Mike Griffin himself once said of man-rating: "This involved a number of factors such as pogo suppression, structural stiffening, and other details not particularly germane to today's expendable vehicles. The concept of 'man rating' in this sense is, I believe, no longer very relevant." He went on to say: "What, precisely, are the precautions that we would take to safeguard a human crew that we would deliberately omit when launching, say, a billion-dollar Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission? The answer is, of course, 'none'. While we appropriately value human life very highly, the investment we make in most unmanned missions is quite sufficient to capture our full attention." So, you can see that even Mike Griffin has changed his tune over the years. Jeff Signature"Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon > Is there a way to get an educated and relatively unbiased opinion on how > difficult it would be to man-rate Delta IV Heavy ? Define "man-rate" (here we go again). 1 Reliability: Delta IV - 100%; STS: not quite as good, but considerably more missions under it's collective belt, so comparison is difficult. 2 Crew survivability during launch: Delta IV - 100% crew survival; STS: 2 crews lost during mission due to launch-related problems. 3 Vibration levels during launch: Delta IV unknown to me; STS: it is reported that 50% of all crew cannot read the instrument panels during launch due to vibration. How do _you_ define "man-rate"? I define it as the ability of the crew to survive the ride and that includes the basic ability to read a bloody instrument panel so they can find out what's going on with the vehicle and decide whether to continue with the launch or to 'pull the chicken ring' (abort). >Define "man-rate" (here we go again). > >1 Reliability: Delta IV - 100%; A llittle less than 100%. Delta IV-Heavy No.1 reached a lower-than-intended orbit due to fuel sloshing or something in the core stages. (Atlas V also dumped a payload in a useless orbit.) >2 Crew survivability during launch: Delta IV - 100% crew survival; I wouldn't go that far. LES's can fail. Parachutes can fail. Its a lot safer than Shuttle, but don't tempt fate by calling it 100% safe. Brian Delta IV is often mentioned here as "the" solution. Say the President of the USA had to make a go or no-go decision this August on whether to continue with Bush's plan or not, would he be presented with a Delta IV possible solition he could choose from ? Or would NASA administrator "filter" that solution out and present to the Administration only the solutions that they would personnally want ? Would the president get the Delta IV message from 3rd parties and then ask NASA why they are not presenting this solution ? >>Define "man-rate" (here we go again). >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I wouldn't go that far. LES's can fail. Parachutes can fail. Its a lot > safer than Shuttle, but don't tempt fate by calling it 100% safe. I'm referring to current launches, not future launches. Even if a crew were on the D-IV-H you refer to, they would still be alive. Crew survivability has nothing to do with mission success. >>>2 Crew survivability during launch: Delta IV - 100% crew survival; >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >on the D-IV-H you refer to, they would still be alive. Crew survivability >has nothing to do with mission success. Beware extrapolating like that. Number of Delta IV flights to date: 10 Number of flights before first Shuttle fatality: 25 Brian > Beware extrapolating like that. > > Number of Delta IV flights to date: 10 > Number of flights before first Shuttle fatality: 25 Sure; but the basic shuttle system is flawed ('O-rings'; Solid booster-induced vibration levels etc). The same cannot be said of the Delta IV. > > Beware extrapolating like that. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > booster-induced vibration levels etc). �The same cannot be said of the Delta > IV. plus delta will have launch boost escape and the much safer and simpler capsule design:) bob haller was zeer hard aan het denken : >>> Beware extrapolating like that. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> booster-induced vibration levels etc). ���The same cannot be said of the Delta >> IV. > plus delta will have launch boost escape and the much safer and > simpler capsule design:) An other question: Is the Delta flight rated for manned use?? A.F.A.I.K.: NO!!! Signature"Jumpin' without a parachute? Kinda dangerous, ain't it?" - Bugs Bunny > bob haller was zeer hard aan het denken : >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > An other question: Is the Delta flight rated for manned use?? > A.F.A.I.K.: NO!!! And what is YOUR definition of 'flight rated for manned use'. Since NASA seems to change based on what's politically expedient. > And what is YOUR definition of 'flight rated for manned use'. Since NASA > seems to change based on what's politically expedient. Someone must know how far/close the Delta 4 is to being "man rated". Someone must be able to set aside all political stuff, look at the "man rating standards" and be able to apply logic to quantify how far Delta 4 is to being "man rated" by the book. And once there is political will, they can decide to do some waivers to make it even closer to being man rated. But someone at NASA must know how far, withour waivers, it is to the established "man rated" standards. >> And what is YOUR definition of 'flight rated for manned use'. Since NASA >> seems to change based on what's politically expedient. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > rating standards" and be able to apply logic to quantify how far Delta 4 > is to being "man rated" by the book. First you have to DEFINE man-rating. > And once there is political will, they can decide to do some waivers to > make it even closer to being man rated. > > But someone at NASA must know how far, withour waivers, it is to the > established "man rated" standards. Which standards are you referring to? What's the document number? >An other question: Is the Delta flight rated for manned use?? >A.F.A.I.K.: NO!!! According to NASA's man-rating standard, neither are Shuttle nor Soyuz. Man-rating is whatever NASA wants it to be. As others have pointed out, if we trust Delta IV with billion-dollar spy satellites which have no escape system, why wouldn't we trust it with manned spacecraft that do? One thing is certain, though. Delta IV will need a whole new avionics suite if we want to put crews onboard. (D-IV's is ancient, the "evolved" part of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle.) But all of the alternatives will need new avionics, too, so this shouldn't be a show-stopper. Brian Na rijp beraad schreef Brian Thorn : >> An other question: Is the Delta flight rated for manned use?? >> A.F.A.I.K.: NO!!! > According to NASA's man-rating standard, neither are Shuttle nor > Soyuz. Man-rating is whatever NASA wants it to be. Source??? If the shuttle and/or Soyuz is not man-rated, why did the designers built in life-suport? (just an example) > As others have pointed out, if we trust Delta IV with billion-dollar > spy satellites which have no escape system, why wouldn't we trust it > with manned spacecraft that do? Because a billion-dollar spy-sat is replacable, a human life isn't. > One thing is certain, though. Delta IV will need a whole new avionics > suite if we want to put crews onboard. (D-IV's is ancient, the > "evolved" part of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle.) But all of > the alternatives will need new avionics, too, so this shouldn't be a > show-stopper. > Brian Signature"Jumpin' without a parachute? Kinda dangerous, ain't it?" - Bugs Bunny > Na rijp beraad schreef Brian Thorn : > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> with manned spacecraft that do? > Because a billion-dollar spy-sat is replacable, a human life isn't. Umm, sure it is. To be quite crass about it, the human life is cheaper. Ask any major construction project how many lives they expect to lose and how much insurance they have to cover losses. >> According to NASA's man-rating standard, neither are Shuttle nor >> Soyuz. Man-rating is whatever NASA wants it to be. >Source??? If the shuttle and/or Soyuz is not man-rated, why did the >designers built in life-suport? (just an example) I don't think we're talking about the same subject. Man-rating is making the vehicle safe enough to x degree (which is very hard to pin down) which usually means layers upon layers of redundancy for all critical systems and monitoring of all systems such that any catatastophic failure can be detected with sufficient time for a crew to escape. Who determines what the x in that degree equals? NASA. >> As others have pointed out, if we trust Delta IV with billion-dollar >> spy satellites which have no escape system, why wouldn't we trust it >> with manned spacecraft that do? >Because a billion-dollar spy-sat is replacable, a human life isn't. That's why the human life has the LES or LAS, so they can get away from the catastrophically failing booster. And strictly speaking it is much easier to replace the astronaut than the spacecraft. We have 100 astronauts but we only built one Hubble. Brian > I don't think we're talking about the same subject. Man-rating is > making the vehicle safe enough to x degree (which is very hard to pin > down) which usually means layers upon layers of redundancy for all > critical systems and monitoring of all systems such that any > catatastophic failure can be detected with sufficient time for a crew > to escape. The reverse can also be true - adding "layers upon layers of redundancy" also increases complexity, which increases the chance of failure. >>> According to NASA's man-rating standard, neither are Shuttle nor >>> Soyuz. Man-rating is whatever NASA wants it to be. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Who determines what the x in that degree equals? NASA. Human rating means whatever NASA wants it to mean. The same rules which were used to deem EELV's as unacceptable for launching people can (and will) be re-written when Ares I can't meet those same rules. >>> As others have pointed out, if we trust Delta IV with billion-dollar >>> spy satellites which have no escape system, why wouldn't we trust it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > much easier to replace the astronaut than the spacecraft. We have 100 > astronauts but we only built one Hubble. Saying a human life isn't replaceable is silly. We replace human life all the time, it's call procreation. Death is inevitable. Pretending astronauts won't die because of "human rating" is also silly. The choice between crashing with an aircraft and ejecting is a choice between certain death and attempted suicide. Launch escape systems are similar, and arguably far more dangerous than e-seats since they've been tested far less and used operationally far fewer times than e-seats. At best, they would give an astronaut a slim chance to live, at worst, they're a "feel good" measure that skeptical engineers don't feel add enough safety to the overall system to justify their expense (development costs, operational costs, and loss of payload capacity, which could be used in other ways to increase safety). Jeff Signature"Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon > Saying a human life isn't replaceable is silly. �We replace human life all > the time, it's call procreation. �Death is inevitable. �Pretending [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Jeff tell that to the soyuz crews family, the crew survived thanks to LES LES allows the crew to get away from a malfunctioning booster, something completely impossible for the shuttle. plus its a realtively simple system......... and doesnt require crew intervention, it can be automated > An other question: Is the Delta flight rated for manned use?? > A.F.A.I.K.: NO!!! Define "rated for manned use" >> Number of Delta IV flights to date: 10 >> Number of flights before first Shuttle fatality: 25 > >Sure; but the basic shuttle system is flawed ('O-rings'; Solid >booster-induced vibration levels etc). The same cannot be said of the Delta >IV. The same thing was said about Shuttle until 51-L. Brian >>> Number of Delta IV flights to date: 10 >>> Number of flights before first Shuttle fatality: 25 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The same thing was said about Shuttle until 51-L. That's not the case at all; people were saying STS isn't safe from before it first flew in 1981. >>>> Number of Delta IV flights to date: 10 >>>> Number of flights before first Shuttle fatality: 25 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >That's not the case at all; people were saying STS isn't safe from before it >first flew in 1981. And NASA is saying that about Delta IV, rating it lower than Ares I or Shuttle-C 2009. Brian > And NASA is saying that about Delta IV, rating it lower than Ares I or > Shuttle-C 2009. That you're going to have to cite. > And NASA is saying that about Delta IV, rating it lower than Ares I or > Shuttle-C 2009. We all know that what NASA says publicaly may not represent what engineers have prepared internally. We all know NASA has found excuses to NOT consider Delta IV. There is no point in repeating it. Getting the real non-PR information on what would be needed to man-rate Delta IV would be valuable. man rating today REQUIRES launch boost escape for any new launcher. my idea is use the lower cost delta heavy but dont cut the nasa workforce. redploy the dollars into unmanned robotic exploration. this could make the US tops in robotics while preventing a workforce reduction >> And NASA is saying that about Delta IV, rating it lower than Ares I or >> Shuttle-C 2009. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Getting the real non-PR information on what would be needed to man-rate > Delta IV would be valuable. You're not going to get that data from NASA. The NASA party line is that it will be very costly to "man-rate" EELV's. If it weren't, then why would NASA bother to develop Ares I at a cost of many billions of dollars? ;-) On the other hand, EELV's are used to launch multi-billion dollar military satellites. It's not like EELV's are *designed* or *intended* to be deliberately more unreliable. What EELV's really need aren't the "man-rated" systems of old (used to turn missiles in to manned launch vehicles), or the "man-rated" systems proposed for Ares (which aren't operational because it's not fully developed yet). What EELV's need are a few more health monitoring sensors, and related equipment, so that Orion's computers can determine when and if the launch escape system needs to be fired. That's all. Jeff Signature"Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon >>>>> Number of Delta IV flights to date: 10 >>>>> Number of flights before first Shuttle fatality: 25 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > And NASA is saying that about Delta IV, rating it lower than Ares I or > Shuttle-C 2009. It's trivial to declare a paper rocket as being "safer" than any other launch vehicle, existing or imagined. The shuttle was supposed to have airline like safety and therefore didn't need e-seats, launch and entry pressure suits, parachutes, and etc. after being declared "operational". We all know how idiotic those decisions were in hindsight. It's the unknown unknowns that kill you. Unfortunately, since they're unknown, you can NEVER include them in your theoretical safety calculations... Jeff Signature"Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon >>>> Number of Delta IV flights to date: 10 >>>> Number of flights before first Shuttle fatality: 25 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's not the case at all; people were saying STS isn't safe from before it > first flew in 1981. And yet, nearly 30 years later, its safety record is equivalent to Soyuz. >> That's not the case at all; people were saying STS isn't safe from before it >> first flew in 1981. > >And yet, nearly 30 years later, its safety record is equivalent to Soyuz. One of the great paradoxes since the mantra of many is 'safe, simple, surviveable'. Also something that space fanboi's refuse to think really hard about. Those that think at all that is. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>>>> Number of Delta IV flights to date: 10 >>>>> Number of flights before first Shuttle fatality: 25 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And yet, nearly 30 years later, its safety record is equivalent to Soyuz. Talk about damning with faint praise... Jeff Signature"Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon >> Beware extrapolating like that. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > booster-induced vibration levels etc). The same cannot be said of the > Delta IV. Right, because we don't know what flaws are in the Delta IV yet. >>> Beware extrapolating like that. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Right, because we don't know what flaws are in the Delta IV yet. OK. Take it from a different perspective - with an LES (Launch Escape System) similar to Apollo (as proposed for Orion), would it really matter what flight problems Delta IV turned out to have? >> Right, because we don't know what flaws are in the Delta IV yet. > >OK. Take it from a different perspective - with an LES (Launch Escape >System) similar to Apollo (as proposed for Orion), would it really matter >what flight problems Delta IV turned out to have? We don't know. And that's the point. Brian >>> Right, because we don't know what flaws are in the Delta IV yet. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > We don't know. And that's the point. Yes, but we _do_ know that Ares 1 will be worse than a shuttle SRB. >>>> Right, because we don't know what flaws are in the Delta IV yet. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yes, but we _do_ know that Ares 1 will be worse than a shuttle SRB. We don't know that either. It could be that all of the kluges, I mean risk mitigation plans, that NASA puts in place on Ares I will actually increase safety enough that it is more safe than a shuttle SRB. But that doesn't mean that it's worth the cost (of Ares I and Ares V) when compared to alternatives like EELV, Direct, or not-shuttle-C. Jeff Signature"Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon >>> Right, because we don't know what flaws are in the Delta IV yet. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > We don't know. And that's the point. NASA doesn't either. The only good reliability numbers come from demonstrated reliability. Note the several orders of magnitude difference between the shuttle's original predicted reliability and its current demonstrated reliability. It's the unknown unknowns that kill you. These are noticeably absent from predicted reliability calculations. :-P Jeff Signature"Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon >>>> Beware extrapolating like that. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > System) similar to Apollo (as proposed for Orion), would it really matter > what flight problems Delta IV turned out to have? 1) Launch abort system only covers the first 30% of ascent 2) No LAS is 100% effective; 90% is the design goal. So LV reliability does matter. >> Assuming Ares I ever sees the light of day, I think its is entirely >> possible Ares V will have a markedly easier development period. No [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >and SSME's are much more expensive than RS-68s. If you want ASAP ISS >access, Delta IV Heavy is the way to go. Not necessarily. The cost comparisons to date have always used Shuttle-era SSME costs... i.e., a few new engines per year, and comparing that cost to something like a twenty RS-68's per year. If you order twenty SSMEs per year, the price comes down considerably. It is still more expensive than RS-68, but that higher cost buys you much better ISp, meaning better fuel efficiency, meaning smaller propellant tanks. Your vehicle overall can be smaller than the RS-68-powered vehicle, meaning no need for Five Segment SRB, no need for a new Crawler at the Cape. SSME Ares V could well prove to be cheaper overall than RS-68 Ares V. The thing that killed SSME for Ares was not its high cost, or even its ability to be air-lit, but its inability to be restarted in flight. So avoid the problem entirely: use an RL-10 cluster in the EDS. One new Ares V, zero new engines. Sure, we'd want to switch to a cheaper SSME derivative eventually, but the point is that we don't absolutely have to. It's not in the critical path. No waiting until 2016 for J-2X. Use the off-the-shelf version for now, even use up the Shuttle program's stock, and get flying ASAP. (And instead of one-purpose J-2X later, finish RL-60 development and get us an engine that will be useful to Atlas and Delta at the same time.) In a perfect world, Delta IV will be the way to go. Unfortunately, the US Congress is far from perfect. We're still stuck with a Congress that very much wants as few Shuttle job losses as possible. That means using as much Shuttle heritage as possible, and that leaves Delta IV out. Shelby is already screwing NASA for just looking into non-Shuttle alternatives. Brian > In a perfect world, Delta IV will be the way to go. Unfortunately, the > US Congress is far from perfect. We're still stuck with a Congress [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Brian- Why assume all shuttle workers must ONLY work on the latest crewed vehicle? Go with delta and perhaps a upsized atlas to launch not just manned vehicles but unmanned ones too, for robotic exploration of our solar system. Job loses none New science Robotics !!!!!! Win win for everyone:) >No waiting until 2016 for J-2X. Use the off-the-shelf > version for now, even use up the Shuttle program's stock, and get > flying ASAP. (And instead of one-purpose J-2X later, finish RL-60 > development and get us an engine that will be useful to Atlas and > Delta at the same time.) I agree that the RL-60/MB-60 (both now involving P&W Rocketdyne) is a much better choice than the J-2 derivative (give higher ISP as well), but on a smaller LV - my idea for the Delta V (Delta IV CBC's in various numbers - 4x for Lunar missions, but perhaps 2x for LEO) along with what I call the NCS - New Core Stage - ~7m diameter (Boeing say about 7.1m), same length as the CBC, but with 2x RS-68; and a third stage with 2x RL-60/MB-60 - payload for a 4x RS-68/NCS combination would be over 55 tonnes LEO and for a 2x CBC (LEO) mission it would be (?) 55 tonnes LEO give a Lunar-surface payload of ~7 tonnes - enough for a Spacelab-size module or a 6-person crew (with refuelling on the surface - known as LSR - Lunar Surface Rendezvous). Simpler (less expensive to develop; easier to deploy); lighter before fuelling (no new Crawler Transporter); lower thrust during launch (less impact on what is, afterall, a National Park; let alone the local towns and cities) than either the Ares 1 or Ares V. The only problem would be getting to Mars with a useful payload - multiple launches would be needed, but there are alternatives, such as an NCS2 (4x RS-68, with same burn time as the CBC; along with 6/8x CBCs and a larger third stage, but I'm not sure of payload performance). > In a perfect world, Delta IV will be the way to go. Unfortunately, the > US Congress is far from perfect. We're still stuck with a Congress > that very much wants as few Shuttle job losses as possible. That means > using as much Shuttle heritage as possible, and that leaves Delta IV > out. Shelby is already screwing NASA for just looking into non-Shuttle > alternatives. Job losses? What Job losses? If the Delta V were built, it would mean _more_ jobs in the aerospace community than STS could ever hope to have provided; along with the fact that it would all be built in one location (unlike Ares - SRB's in Utah; Core stage/ET in Michoud; third stage probably in California), with the exception of the NCS (which would be built in Michoud or even at the Cape itself - it's going to be the only launch site anyway - no West Coast launches are likely). It would also reduce costs - whereas the current situation would have four different engines (the Delta IV with the RS-68 and the RL-10; the Ares 1 with the 5-segment SRB and the J-2x; and the Ares V with the RS-68 regen - don't forget, this is a modified engine; J-2x and 5-segment SRB - a total of 4 different engines/motors), the 'Delta Solution' would be RS-68; RL-10 and RL-60/MB-60 - three engines. This would reduce program costs for both vehicles (just increasing RS-68 production would be a massive boost to the Delta IV). I've just given you three different launch vehicles using just three different engines in various combinations simply by changing the configuration/quantity of engines and also the size of the NCS (similar to the current situation of STS using the ET along with the CBC - no real cost change compared to those two programs). Ares V will never be built - it's getting too heavy and complicated to be practical. > Job losses? What Job losses? If the Delta V were built, it would mean > _more_ jobs in the aerospace community than STS could ever hope to have > provided; > It would also reduce costs - These two points are mutually contradictory. Number one cost in aerospace is labor. Reducing costs means fewer jobs; more jobs means higher costs. Make up your mind. >> Job losses? What Job losses? If the Delta V were built, it would mean >> _more_ jobs in the aerospace community than STS could ever hope to have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is labor. Reducing costs means fewer jobs; more jobs means higher costs. > Make up your mind. There'd be more launches with two different launch vehicles using essentially the same equipment (Delta IV and Delta V). For my Moon program, I'd need 7 delta V launches a year (less than the cost of two shuttle flights, plus payloads) - with six RS-68 engines on each vehicle, it's 42 RS-68 engines being produced per year; do you think the existing workforce could handle that number? If production is increased, so the number of people needed for that increase also increases; but it doesn't necessarily increase costs - per unit costs would drop quite dramatically. At the moment, the current workforce is producing how many RS-68s? And how many can the current workforce produce? Then there's the increase in the number of CBCs being made - (up from how many at the moment?) at least 28 more than being produced with the current workforce. Do you think the current workforce could handle that? Producing more CBCs will also reduce the unit cost. >Job losses? What Job losses? If the Delta V were built, it would mean >_more_ jobs in the aerospace community No, it wouldn't. You might not have noticed that we're already building and flying Delta IV and not employing any Shuttle people to do so. Why would that change for Delta V? All the people canned at ATK aren't going to suddenly become Delta V builders, for example. > than STS could ever hope to have >provided; along with the fact that it would all be built in one location >(unlike Ares - SRB's in Utah; Core stage/ET in Michoud; third stage probably >in California), EDS probably also at Michoud (same diameter as core, same tooling), not California. > with the exception of the NCS (which would be built in >Michoud or even at the Cape itself - it's going to be the only launch site >anyway - no West Coast launches are likely). It would also reduce costs Not if you don't reduce the manpower, which you say you won't. That's by far the biggest cost in the Shuttle program. The only real advantage would be crossover between EELV and Constellation, but that won't be a lot, because no one but Constellation will need Delta V any decade soon. >whereas the current situation would have four different engines (the Delta >IV with the RS-68 and the RL-10; the Ares 1 with the 5-segment SRB and the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >This would reduce program costs for both vehicles (just increasing RS-68 >production would be a massive boost to the Delta IV). I'd give up on RS-68 and just use SSME, its a much better engine, and we have those beasts very well debugged now since the new turbopumps and other improvements in the 1990s. Go back to ET-diameter stages and four-segment boosters to offset the higher cost of SSME vs. RS-68B. >I've just given you three different launch vehicles using just three >different engines in various combinations simply by changing the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Ares V will never be built - it's getting too heavy and complicated to be >practical. Not sure about the complicated part, but it is getting too big and expensive to ever pass muster on Capitol Hill. NASA needs to change its plan, and they need to do it two years ago. It might already be too late to save Constellation for anything other than ISS duty. Brian >>It's a bit early to train geologists for a program that hasn't been made >>official yet; only Ares 1 has been approved and with all the problems [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > will long be flying by then. It really will be an integration effort, > with few newly designed parts. Yea, it will be a piece of cake... not! Ares I was thought to be "easy" too, and it's turning out to be a huge P.I.T.A. Ares V would be the largest launch vehicle ever developed. I expect problems to develop, like the base heating trouble already found which will negate the use of ablative nozzles on the RS-68 engines. That means that there very well could be an engine development program for Ares V. My guess is either a regeneratively cooled version of the RS-68 or a "disposable" version of the SSME will need to be developed. Either way, that's not a trivial task. > We should abandon Ares I and go straight to Ares V. Build an Ares > V-Lite for early crew flights, using existing SRB and SSMEs, standard [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Of course, this vehicle is essentially DIRECT's "Jupiter", or one of > various NLS designs from the early 90s. Sort of. DIRECT's Jupiter (i.e. version 3.0) has much more in common with the Shuttle than Ares V. NASA also appears to be hedging its bets with the Augustine Commission with it's "not Shuttle-C" proposal. The only downside of "not Shuttle-C" is the side-mount bit. Replace that with an inline launcher and you get DIRECT's Jupiter. Jeff Signature"Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon >>> It's a bit early to train geologists for a program that hasn't been made >>> official yet; only Ares 1 has been approved and with all the problems [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > of "not Shuttle-C" is the side-mount bit. Replace that with an inline > launcher and you get DIRECT's Jupiter. Whether it's an upside or a downside depends on what variable you're trying to optimize. "Not Shuttle-C" would almost undoubtedly be cheaper to develop than Jupiter, but Jupiter would likely have lower operational costs. The current budget crisis is all about the development costs. >> Sort of. DIRECT's Jupiter (i.e. version 3.0) has much more in common >> with the Shuttle than Ares V. NASA also appears to be hedging its bets [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > develop than Jupiter, but Jupiter would likely have lower operational > costs. The current budget crisis is all about the development costs. I'm not sure I'd buy the assertion that "Not Shuttle-C" would be cheaper to develop than Jupiter. "Not Shuttle-C" doesn't appear to use the same mold-lines as the shuttle, so it looks to be an all new structure with different aerodynamics than the shuttle. Not keeping the same mold-lines means you're going to modify existing ground support hardware and the like. I'm also leery of the larger side mounted pod because that's going to potentially mean different loads on the ET during launch, which could mean changes to the ET. "Not Shuttle-C" has already started down its own slippery slope by not keeping the shuttle mold-lines. But you really can't do much with a side mount architecture without increasing the payload diameter to be greater than that of the shuttle's payload bay, now can you? Jeff Signature"Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon >>> Sort of. DIRECT's Jupiter (i.e. version 3.0) has much more in common >>> with the Shuttle than Ares V. NASA also appears to be hedging its bets [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > different aerodynamics than the shuttle. Not keeping the same mold-lines > means you're going to modify existing ground support hardware and the like. Take a closer look, Jeff. Some needs to be modified, some does not. In particular, the aft fuselage of "Not Shuttle-C" follows the OML of the orbiter aft fuselage and is in the same position relative to the ET/SRBs. So the existing shuttle MLPs can be kept; the flame duct is in the right position and the TSMs can be kept since the T-0 umbilicals are unmoved. That is not the case with Jupiter, which is an inline design. It will require extensive mods to the MLPs. It also goes without saying that Jupiter's aft thrust structure will differ more from the orbiter's thrust structure than the one on Not Shuttle-C. The side pod does exceed the orbiter OML so that does mean that the existing RSS cannot be retracted over it. That is not an issue if pad access to the cargo is not required (pad access is not possible on many ELVs, so it is something the industry is used to, though it is new to NASA). It will require mods to the existing VAB access platforms, but Jupiter requires *additional* access platforms for the inline payload. > I'm also leery of the larger side mounted pod because that's going to > potentially mean different loads on the ET during launch, which could mean > changes to the ET. The loads will be different, yes. Most likely in the good direction since the pod doesn't have wings, either (loads will be mostly drag rather than tension/compression). If ET mods are required, they will undoubtedly be less than required for Jupiter since it has completely different load paths, both due to inline payload and inline thrust structure. Not Shuttle-C makes little sense as a crew launcher, and its *operational* costs will undoubtedly be worse than Jupiter, but it has some clear advantages in development costs and schedule, which is the real cause of the crisis today. > Not Shuttle-C makes little sense as a crew launcher, and its *operational* > costs will undoubtedly be worse than Jupiter, but it has some clear > advantages in development costs and schedule, which is the real cause of > the crisis today. You know, I find it weird one of the guys who works for me is so young, doesn't know what you can get at Alice's Restaurant, doesn't remember a time before STS-1, etc. But now we all get to relive the past. Once again, it appears we're permitting development costs override operational costs. Look where that got us last time. I'm just too cynical for this game. SignatureGreg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC. >> Not Shuttle-C makes little sense as a crew launcher, and its >> *operational* costs will undoubtedly be worse than Jupiter, but it has [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I'm just too cynical for this game. I wasn't going to say it first, but I agree with you. Keeping the side mounted architecture after the shuttle is gone is just dumb. Every other launcher out there has an inline design, for good reason. The overall experience with inline designs is much greater than for side mounted designs. As an example, inline payload fairings are fairly standard to design. I can't believe a side mounted payload fairing for not shuttle C would be as easy to design or manufacture since it's got to attach to the side of the ET just like the shuttle. This piece of not shuttle C will certainly be more expensive to develop than for the inline alternative. As another example, look at the TVC on the SRB's. On the NSF forums, it has been suggested that with an inline design (i.e. Direct), the TVC systems on the SRB's could be removed as the 3-4 SSME's under the core have more than enough control authority to launch the stack. Deleting a system like SRB TVC would mean one less thing to go wrong (gimballing the nozzles on the SRB's is no small feat), one less thing to manufacture, one less thing to maintain after being dunked in the ocean... In the long run, I wonder how many millions of dollars you save just by deleting the SRB TVC system. Jeff Signature"Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon >> But now we all get to relive the past. >> Once again, it appears we're permitting development costs override >> operational costs. Sadly, we live in the real world where development costs matter. Not to mention that at the low flight rate that Ares (or DIRECT, or not Shuttle-C) will see, it's hard to believe that operational costs can be reduced significantly anyhow. >As another example, look at the TVC on the SRB's. On the NSF forums, it has >been suggested that with an inline design (i.e. Direct), the TVC systems on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >SRB's is no small feat), one less thing to manufacture, one less thing to >maintain after being dunked in the ocean... Assuming of course that the SSME's have sufficient control authority (not just in force, but response time). >In the long run, I wonder how many millions of dollars you save just by deleting >the SRB TVC system. Balanced of course against the unknown millions of dollars to develop and qualify and TVCless SRB. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >> Assuming Ares I ever sees the light of day, I think its is entirely >> possible Ares V will have a markedly easier development period. No [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >heating trouble already found which will negate the use of ablative nozzles >on the RS-68 engines. I didn't say piece of cake, I said easier than Ares I. Ares I has the headache of vertical oscillation, excessive vibration, tower impact evasion, Five Segment SRB and J-2X development. Things Ares V won't have to put up with. Ares V will have its own headaches, but will they outnumber those of Ares I? Offhand, I'll go out on a limb and say no. I maintain that Ares V will actually have a smoother development phase than Ares I... assuming they survive the summer of '09. >That means that there very well could be an engine development program for >Ares V. My guess is either a regeneratively cooled version of the RS-68 or >a "disposable" version of the SSME will need to be developed. Either way, >that's not a trivial task. I don't think "disposable SSME" will be all that hard, myself. Brian >> Military, pentagon, CIA and flight surgeons. >> >> Hmm, so not a lot of outsiders there then... >> >...and not a single geologist in the bunch. "What's old is new again." Geologists are needed on the International Space Station? Brian > So there are another 9. Looking at the short descriptions, I was strucck > by the following. > > Military, pentagon, CIA and flight surgeons. Is this a result of processes begun by the previous USA government, or does this selection fully reflect current administration ? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.