Author Topic: Why did Mike Griffin change his mind regarding EELV's?  (Read 48731 times)

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15394
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8567
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Why did Mike Griffin change his mind regarding EELV's?
« Reply #20 on: 01/07/2009 08:31 pm »

I believe that he has been taken out of context in his support of EELV's. His thought is that they are fine for launching a LEO spacecraft, but not for a lunar capable spacecraft. Furthermore the mandate to preserve Shuttle infrastructure weighs in.

You are taking it out of context.   There wasn't a VSE when he said it. 
There is no difference in launching a LEO only spacecraft or  lunar capable spacecraft to LEO (Which Ares I only does)

I'm pretty sure that the OSP payload requirements were much less than the CEV payload requirements.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why did Mike Griffin change his mind regarding EELV's?
« Reply #21 on: 01/07/2009 08:40 pm »

I believe that he has been taken out of context in his support of EELV's. His thought is that they are fine for launching a LEO spacecraft, but not for a lunar capable spacecraft. Furthermore the mandate to preserve Shuttle infrastructure weighs in.

You are taking it out of context.   There wasn't a VSE when he said it. 
There is no difference in launching a LEO only spacecraft or  lunar capable spacecraft to LEO (Which Ares I only does)

I'm pretty sure that the OSP payload requirements were much less than the CEV payload requirements.

 - Ed Kyle

The point is that from the launch vehicles perspective, it only cares about the total mass it's trying to lift to a particular altitude.  Not if it's going anywhere else.  The "requirements" and functions of the CEV or OSP have little to do with that.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: Why did Mike Griffin change his mind regarding EELV's?
« Reply #22 on: 01/07/2009 08:41 pm »
I don't know where one goes to buy a commercial lunar mission....

As others have pointed out LEO is not the Moon.  Ares-I does not deliver Orion to the Moon, it delivers it to LEO.  The same place that Boeing, LM, and many other entities already deliver stuff on a regular basis, and that without ten billion dollars and gutting the very HR&T funding NASA would need to enable real exploration.

Quote
But Griffin *did* buy commercial, well beyond previous NASA experience.  COTS and now CRS.  Billions worth.  Contracts for launch vehicles and spacecraft not designed by NASA, let in support of NASA's human space efforts in a way that hasn't previously happened.  Are those billions blown, in your opinion?

No, that's a fair point, and I was being somewhat hyperbolic.  While the idea for COTS actually predates Griffin, IIRC, he has supported it and put his reputation somewhat on the line for it, and hopefully that's what he gets remembered for. 

My big beef with him is for squandering several years and several billion dollars to build a more expensive, less capable EELV.  One that will probably never be anywhere near as safe as naive probabilistic reliability assessments led some to believe.  Constellation is NASA business as usual.  The fact that NASA is taking about 2% of its budget over 10 years ($3.6B for COTS and CRS) and putting it into buying commercial is a start, but it's still only a drop in the bucket compared to what they're going to waste on business as usual CxP launch vehicle development.

Some change, but still mostly inertia.

~Jon

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15394
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8567
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Why did Mike Griffin change his mind regarding EELV's?
« Reply #23 on: 01/07/2009 08:44 pm »

I believe that he has been taken out of context in his support of EELV's. His thought is that they are fine for launching a LEO spacecraft, but not for a lunar capable spacecraft. Furthermore the mandate to preserve Shuttle infrastructure weighs in.

You are taking it out of context.   There wasn't a VSE when he said it. 
There is no difference in launching a LEO only spacecraft or  lunar capable spacecraft to LEO (Which Ares I only does)

I'm pretty sure that the OSP payload requirements were much less than the CEV payload requirements.

 - Ed Kyle

The point is that from the launch vehicles perspective, it only cares about the total mass it's trying to lift to a particular altitude.  Not if it's going anywhere else.  The "requirements" and functions of the CEV or OSP have little to do with that.

Yes, everything is exactly the same - except that the lunar mission CEV spacecraft weighs twice as much as the OSP ISS spacecraft, which means  twice as much launch vehicle, twice as much money, etc. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 01/07/2009 08:45 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: Why did Mike Griffin change his mind regarding EELV's?
« Reply #24 on: 01/07/2009 08:46 pm »
I'm pretty sure that the OSP payload requirements were much less than the CEV payload requirements.

And both Delta-IVH and Atlas-VH have more payload capacity than Ares-I.  Quite frankly, you could almost launch an Orion to ISS using just an Atlas-V 401/402 (assuming you used the unneeded TEI propellants to use the CEV as a third stage).  With a phase-1 WBC, you could launch it single stick.  For lunar missions non-cryo propellant transfer is a proven technology.

There are plenty of options.  Ares-I isn't a moon rocket.  It's NASA once again insisting on building and operating its own rockets when it should be buying commercial launch services. 

~Jon

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why did Mike Griffin change his mind regarding EELV's?
« Reply #25 on: 01/07/2009 08:48 pm »

I believe that he has been taken out of context in his support of EELV's. His thought is that they are fine for launching a LEO spacecraft, but not for a lunar capable spacecraft. Furthermore the mandate to preserve Shuttle infrastructure weighs in.

You are taking it out of context.   There wasn't a VSE when he said it. 
There is no difference in launching a LEO only spacecraft or  lunar capable spacecraft to LEO (Which Ares I only does)

I'm pretty sure that the OSP payload requirements were much less than the CEV payload requirements.

 - Ed Kyle

The point is that from the launch vehicles perspective, it only cares about the total mass it's trying to lift to a particular altitude.  Not if it's going anywhere else.  The "requirements" and functions of the CEV or OSP have little to do with that.

Yes, everything is exactly the same - except that the lunar mission CEV spacecraft weighs twice as much as the OSP ISS spacecraft, which means  twice as much launch vehicle, twice as much money, etc. 

 - Ed Kyle

It does not automatically mean twice as much launch vehicle.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: Why did Mike Griffin change his mind regarding EELV's?
« Reply #26 on: 01/07/2009 08:49 pm »
Yes, everything is exactly the same - except that the lunar mission CEV spacecraft weighs twice as much as the OSP ISS spacecraft, which means  twice as much launch vehicle, twice as much money, etc.

And most of that extra mass is propellant.  Propellant of the form that even the US now has demonstrated the capability of handling, storing, and transferring on orbit I might add.  The actual capsule itself is only a little bigger and a little more sophisticated than an LEO capsule.  Mostly it's just bigger tanks and a bigger engine strapped to a only slightly upgraded command module. 

And even if you want to stick with pre-1980s soviet technology for some retro reason, both EELV Heavy variants can easily launch the bigger mass.

~Jon
« Last Edit: 01/07/2009 08:49 pm by jongoff »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15394
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8567
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Why did Mike Griffin change his mind regarding EELV's?
« Reply #27 on: 01/07/2009 08:52 pm »
I'm pretty sure that the OSP payload requirements were much less than the CEV payload requirements.

And both Delta-IVH and Atlas-VH have more payload capacity than Ares-I. 

This is not correct.  At least the Delta IV Heavy part is not correct.  Not at the moment.  Perhaps it will after 2011, after RS-68A enters service, if RS-68A ever meets its specs, but I haven't seen enough details to know this for certain. 

But this "Delta IV Heavy can carry more than Ares I" statement that keeps getting repeated on these forums is simply wrong.  You have to compare apples with apples.  You have to contemplate what it takes to haul not only Orion but its heavy LAS and spacecraft adapters as well.  You have to model for the non-lofted trajectory, etc. 

 - Ed Kyle 

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: Why did Mike Griffin change his mind regarding EELV's?
« Reply #28 on: 01/07/2009 09:04 pm »
This is not correct.  At least the Delta IV Heavy part is not correct.  Not at the moment.  Perhaps it will after 2011, after RS-68A enters service, if RS-68A ever meets its specs, but I haven't seen enough details to know this for certain.

Are you sure?  Delta-IVH numbers are usually quoted to an actual circular orbit, not a suborbit.  Do you have numbers for what it could deliver to the same injection target as Ares-I?

Also, RS-68 is an existing engine that now has some flight experience.  2011 is a lot sooner than Ares-I will be ready to fly, and you're assuming that Ares-I doesn't suffer any more performance shortfalls either.

I guess my beef is that you never give commercial companies that have successfully developed and fielded launch vehicles any slack, but always assume nothing will go wrong with a completely unproven government launch vehicle development team.

Quote
But this "Delta IV Heavy can carry more than Ares I" statement that keeps getting repeated on these forums is simply wrong.  You have to compare apples with apples.  You have to contemplate what it takes to haul not only Orion but its heavy LAS and spacecraft adapters as well.  You have to model for the non-lofted trajectory, etc. 

And there are factors on the other side (such as the fact that Ares-I numbers aren't all the way to LEO).  You might be right that Delta-IVH will only be better in two years once the upgrades are complete.  But the point is that that's still a lot closer on hand than some vehicle that's barely "passed" PDR.

And Ares-I still isn't a moon rocket.

~Jon

Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Motown
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Why did Mike Griffin change his mind regarding EELV's?
« Reply #29 on: 01/07/2009 09:30 pm »
Jon and Ed are both bringing valid points, but what do we know today that we didn't know in 2005? There have been points of departure, in the Ares I history so far, and I believe Mike Griffin when he says that you cannot continuously look back.
« Last Edit: 01/07/2009 09:39 pm by sandrot »
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Why did Mike Griffin change his mind regarding EELV's?
« Reply #30 on: 01/07/2009 09:36 pm »
Jon and Ed are both bringing valid points, but what do we know today that we didn't know in 2005? There have been points of departure, in the Ares I history so far, and I believe Mike Griffin when he says that you cannot continuously look back.

There was no 27mT RS-68A D-IVH then. It changes the game, it lifts more than Ares I under the same conditions. It would do over 30mt with a J2-X upperstage like Ares I or regen RS-68s.  It is also has commonality with Ares V but in a different way to Ares I.
« Last Edit: 01/07/2009 09:58 pm by marsavian »

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Why did Mike Griffin change his mind regarding EELV's?
« Reply #31 on: 01/07/2009 11:29 pm »
I would also add that ULA proved that the "blackzones" do not exist and are not the show stopper they were made out to be.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: Why did Mike Griffin change his mind regarding EELV's?
« Reply #32 on: 01/08/2009 02:16 am »
I would also add that ULA proved that the "blackzones" do not exist and are not the show stopper they were made out to be.

Well, more correctly that the blackzones are closeable without taking too much of a performance hit.

~Jon

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Why did Mike Griffin change his mind regarding EELV's?
« Reply #33 on: 01/08/2009 05:53 am »
1) Recall that the Congressional language in support of Shuttle Derived was AFTER ESAS was published.  I recall that as my second darkest day at NASA, first being 2/1/03.

2) After stealing some server time plagiarizing, we get Delta IV Heavy with RS-68A as 53,700lb to Ares 1 -30x100 51.6 orbit, black zones designed out, but no margin.  Assumed an 18,000lb LAS and 1400lb spacecraft adapter.  Probably just shy of 58,000lb to the same lunar rdz orbit.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15394
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8567
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Why did Mike Griffin change his mind regarding EELV's?
« Reply #34 on: 01/08/2009 03:12 pm »
1) Recall that the Congressional language in support of Shuttle Derived was AFTER ESAS was published.  I recall that as my second darkest day at NASA, first being 2/1/03.

2) After stealing some server time plagiarizing, we get Delta IV Heavy with RS-68A as 53,700lb to Ares 1 -30x100 51.6 orbit, black zones designed out, but no margin.  Assumed an 18,000lb LAS and 1400lb spacecraft adapter.  Probably just shy of 58,000lb to the same lunar rdz orbit.

O.K.  Numbers.  Thanks!  Looks to be roughly one metric tonne better that the most recent Ares I numbers that I've seen for both orbits.  Delta IV Heavy with vanilla RS-68 couldn't match Ares I, so an improvement.  This must require some structural improvements, since the current ULA Delta IV data sheet shows LEO payload limited to 21.9 tonnes (48,264 lb) for *both* 28.5 and 51.6 deg orbits.

My understanding is that the first RS-68A launch is to go from Vandenberg SLC 6 in 2010-11. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Motown
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Why did Mike Griffin change his mind regarding EELV's?
« Reply #35 on: 01/08/2009 03:20 pm »
Since both Atlas V and Delta IV have a RL-10/Centaur US, I also believe in 2005 this was not perceived as the way to go. Would NASA like a man-rated Centaur US?
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline Herb Schaltegger


I don't know where one goes to buy a commercial lunar mission....


Ed, seriously, think about it:  ILS, Airanespace and Sea-Launch will happily sell you a slot to launch 6,000+ kg to GTO (for around $70M - $120M, depending on many factors, last numbers I saw - but they may be completely out of date).  In any event, if you had a legitimate lunar payload and money for a deposit, I'm sure they'd loft you a payload (small though it may be).

The reality is, there IS a market for LEO access and it's gotten much bigger with COTS.  There is no market for lunar access and no vehicles at all that can do what NASA wants to do there.  However, there ARE alternate architectures that could do it in much smaller chunks of mass, for which EELVs might well be suitable.  That in itself would create a whole new market.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Why did Mike Griffin change his mind regarding EELV's?
« Reply #37 on: 01/09/2009 02:06 am »
Since both Atlas V and Delta IV have a RL-10/Centaur US, I also believe in 2005 this was not perceived as the way to go. Would NASA like a man-rated Centaur US?

What is a man-rated Centaur?  NASA no longer knows since 8705.2B removed the requirements.

Abra cadabra!  Centaur is hereby man-rated enough for me.  How soon can I get a ticket?

There has never been a set of man-rating requirements written in a true cost-benefit environment.  Folks, I'm going to keep pinging on this until we realize that man-rating has no clothes.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2009 02:06 am by Antares »
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Why did Mike Griffin change his mind regarding EELV's?
« Reply #38 on: 01/09/2009 02:14 am »
Not to get too OT, but I dare say they need to take a hard look at the 'new' man-rating requirements. That's one thing a new administrator should take a good look at: Is it fine where it is, or should we go back to the old standard, or is the old standard inadequate or in need of improvement.

I'm thinking it needs to be kicked up a notch from where it is now (at the very least). That's my personal view. Safe, but realistic.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37449
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21466
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Why did Mike Griffin change his mind regarding EELV's?
« Reply #39 on: 01/09/2009 06:01 am »
Since both Atlas V and Delta IV have a RL-10/Centaur US, I also believe in 2005 this was not perceived as the way to go. Would NASA like a man-rated Centaur US?

Delta IV does not use a Centuar

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1