Quote from: Downix on 02/01/2011 02:14 amQuote from: OV-106 on 02/01/2011 02:07 amI agree the "man-rating" arguement is a bit overblown. It's just needs to be something that allows the vehicles on top to trigger the LAS if necessary. That said, during Augustine I believe it was Aerospace that suggested it would take something like seven years (whatever). I also remember seeing something, somewhere (can't find it now) about this costing something on the order of billions. Anyone remember that or know where I may have seen it?ULA had 5-6 years and a $1.5 billion program, for the Delta IV. Augustine had 6-7 years and $1.8 billion for the same. In both, the Atlas V was listed as being available immediately and without cost penalty.That makes no sense. How do you claim the Atlas V is man-rated but the Delta IV is not?
Quote from: OV-106 on 02/01/2011 02:07 amI agree the "man-rating" arguement is a bit overblown. It's just needs to be something that allows the vehicles on top to trigger the LAS if necessary. That said, during Augustine I believe it was Aerospace that suggested it would take something like seven years (whatever). I also remember seeing something, somewhere (can't find it now) about this costing something on the order of billions. Anyone remember that or know where I may have seen it?ULA had 5-6 years and a $1.5 billion program, for the Delta IV. Augustine had 6-7 years and $1.8 billion for the same. In both, the Atlas V was listed as being available immediately and without cost penalty.
I agree the "man-rating" arguement is a bit overblown. It's just needs to be something that allows the vehicles on top to trigger the LAS if necessary. That said, during Augustine I believe it was Aerospace that suggested it would take something like seven years (whatever). I also remember seeing something, somewhere (can't find it now) about this costing something on the order of billions. Anyone remember that or know where I may have seen it?
I think you're kind of missing the point I was making. It's not a big deal.
The spaceplane has a name: Prometheushttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?_r=1&hpw
Quote from: Downix on 02/01/2011 02:14 amQuote from: OV-106 on 02/01/2011 02:07 amI agree the "man-rating" arguement is a bit overblown. It's just needs to be something that allows the vehicles on top to trigger the LAS if necessary. That said, during Augustine I believe it was Aerospace that suggested it would take something like seven years (whatever). I also remember seeing something, somewhere (can't find it now) about this costing something on the order of billions. Anyone remember that or know where I may have seen it?ULA had 5-6 years and a $1.5 billion program, for the Delta IV. Augustine had 6-7 years and $1.8 billion for the same. In both, the Atlas V was listed as being available immediately and without cost penalty.Not that this thread is the place to ask, but where did ULA give those numbers, because I don't remember hearing numbers in that range before. Most of the ULA numbers I had heard were for much lower amounts.~Jon
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 01/31/2011 10:12 pmThe spaceplane has a name: Prometheushttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?_r=1&hpwOh, sounds like someone at OSC is a Stargate SG-1 fan.
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 02/01/2011 03:48 amQuote from: pathfinder_01 on 01/31/2011 10:12 pmThe spaceplane has a name: Prometheushttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?_r=1&hpwOh, sounds like someone at OSC is a Stargate SG-1 fan.That or they're Alien fans. Ridley Scott is making an Alien-universe "prequel" called Prometheus
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 01/31/2011 10:12 pmThe spaceplane has a name: Prometheushttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?_r=1&hpwMore interestingly, it has a budget. $3.5-4B, with a B. That's got to be a budgetary non-starter. ...
Quote from: HMXHMX on 02/01/2011 12:10 amQuote from: pathfinder_01 on 01/31/2011 10:12 pmThe spaceplane has a name: Prometheushttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?_r=1&hpwMore interestingly, it has a budget. $3.5-4B, with a B. That's got to be a budgetary non-starter. ...Depends where and how that money is spent. Congress might well prefer to spend a lot more in the 'right' places. They generally do.
Do we know which lift vehicle this is aimed for? If it is Delta, it could include the $1.5 billion to update the Delta for human flight.
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 01/31/2011 10:12 pmThe spaceplane has a name: Prometheushttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?_r=1&hpwDOAElons pricing idea for the Merlin 2 and the HLV suddenly are looking cheap again. More interestingly, it has a budget. $3.5-4B, with a B. That's got to be a budgetary non-starter. SNC claims <$1B for comparable approach. And there are other proposals on the table that are even less, with more capability.
Quote from: Downix on 02/01/2011 05:41 pmDo we know which lift vehicle this is aimed for? If it is Delta, it could include the $1.5 billion to update the Delta for human flight.So far the plan is that all commercial crew vechiles will use Atlas 402. Orion it seems will either use Delta IV or SLS. Which makes me suspect that ULA is aiming for an SLS that is Delta IV derived. Human rating the delta IV is another question.
ULA's pretty clear on what needs to be done for getting the Delta IV ready for human spaceflight. The USAF's signed off on it, so that eliminates that concern. It's a case of adding in pieces which an unmanned launcher doesn't need, but a manned would. Flame mitigation, for instance. (like what happened at SLS-6). Redundant valves, sensors, metering systems, cutoff systems, etc. It's a ton of minor tweaks.
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 02/01/2011 05:52 pmQuote from: Downix on 02/01/2011 05:41 pmDo we know which lift vehicle this is aimed for? If it is Delta, it could include the $1.5 billion to update the Delta for human flight.So far the plan is that all commercial crew vechiles will use Atlas 402. Orion it seems will either use Delta IV or SLS. Which makes me suspect that ULA is aiming for an SLS that is Delta IV derived. Human rating the delta IV is another question. ULA's pretty clear on what needs to be done for getting the Delta IV ready for human spaceflight. The USAF's signed off on it, so that eliminates that concern. It's a case of adding in pieces which an unmanned launcher doesn't need, but a manned would. Flame mitigation, for instance. (like what happened at SLS-6). Redundant valves, sensors, metering systems, cutoff systems, etc. It's a ton of minor tweaks.
Quote from: Downix on 02/01/2011 06:41 pmULA's pretty clear on what needs to be done for getting the Delta IV ready for human spaceflight. The USAF's signed off on it, so that eliminates that concern. It's a case of adding in pieces which an unmanned launcher doesn't need, but a manned would. Flame mitigation, for instance. (like what happened at SLS-6). Redundant valves, sensors, metering systems, cutoff systems, etc. It's a ton of minor tweaks. I agree but the problem is no commitment to launch anything with people on it.
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 02/01/2011 07:01 pmQuote from: Downix on 02/01/2011 06:41 pmULA's pretty clear on what needs to be done for getting the Delta IV ready for human spaceflight. The USAF's signed off on it, so that eliminates that concern. It's a case of adding in pieces which an unmanned launcher doesn't need, but a manned would. Flame mitigation, for instance. (like what happened at SLS-6). Redundant valves, sensors, metering systems, cutoff systems, etc. It's a ton of minor tweaks. I agree but the problem is no commitment to launch anything with people on it. Exactly, until there is a commitment, why waste money doing it?
These "minor tweaks" cost money, drive schedule, etc. I think you will find many asking (and I believe HMX was also alluding to this) that why can we place multi-billion dollar sats and probes but not people? It does not make logical sense in today's world of technical capability and experience.I know better than many on here the commitment, dedication and attention to detail required consistently if launching a crew into space. Yet there comes a point when you have to ask if we're at the wall of diminishing returns and, for a lack of a better phrase, is "good enough, good enough" right now? Obviously some mods will be required, such as some sort of system that allows the actual spacecraft to monitor key launch vehicle parameters to trigger the LAS if necessary and an ability to actually get the crew in the ship. The majority of the rest, and the likely paper work requirement of traceability all the way to the ore being removed from the ground, I don't believe is necessary in large part.
Quote from: Downix on 02/01/2011 06:41 pmQuote from: pathfinder_01 on 02/01/2011 05:52 pmQuote from: Downix on 02/01/2011 05:41 pmDo we know which lift vehicle this is aimed for? If it is Delta, it could include the $1.5 billion to update the Delta for human flight.So far the plan is that all commercial crew vechiles will use Atlas 402. Orion it seems will either use Delta IV or SLS. Which makes me suspect that ULA is aiming for an SLS that is Delta IV derived. Human rating the delta IV is another question. ULA's pretty clear on what needs to be done for getting the Delta IV ready for human spaceflight. The USAF's signed off on it, so that eliminates that concern. It's a case of adding in pieces which an unmanned launcher doesn't need, but a manned would. Flame mitigation, for instance. (like what happened at SLS-6). Redundant valves, sensors, metering systems, cutoff systems, etc. It's a ton of minor tweaks. These "minor tweaks" cost money, drive schedule, etc. I think you will find many asking (and I believe HMX was also alluding to this) that why can we place multi-billion dollar sats and probes but not people? It does not make logical sense in today's world of technical capability and experience.I know better than many on here the commitment, dedication and attention to detail required consistently if launching a crew into space. Yet there comes a point when you have to ask if we're at the wall of diminishing returns and, for a lack of a better phrase, is "good enough, good enough" right now? Obviously some mods will be required, such as some sort of system that allows the actual spacecraft to monitor key launch vehicle parameters to trigger the LAS if necessary and an ability to actually get the crew in the ship. The majority of the rest, and the likely paper work requirement of traceability all the way to the ore being removed from the ground, I don't believe is necessary in large part.