It is a common practice to go near a fueled rocket. See Ice teams, red teams, closeout crew, etc.
It WAS common practice to go near a fueled Shuttle stack. That does not make it great idea. Does ULA allow ground crew near a fueled Atlas or Delta?
Quote from: Jim on 01/19/2018 12:36 pmIt is a common practice to go near a fueled rocket. See Ice teams, red teams, closeout crew, etc. It WAS common practice to go near a fueled Shuttle stack. That does not make it great idea. Does ULA allow ground crew near a fueled Atlas or Delta?
Quote from: envy887 on 01/22/2018 05:20 pmIt WAS common practice to go near a fueled Shuttle stack. That does not make it great idea. Does ULA allow ground crew near a fueled Atlas or Delta?There isnt a need to currently, but once crew flies on CST-100 Starliner, they will to support the crew. Comparing a manned and unmanned launch is pretty much apples and oranges.Edit: And the Russians also have crew near a loaded Soyuz for manned flights.
Quote from: envy887 on 01/22/2018 05:20 pmQuote from: Jim on 01/19/2018 12:36 pmIt is a common practice to go near a fueled rocket. See Ice teams, red teams, closeout crew, etc. It WAS common practice to go near a fueled Shuttle stack. That does not make it great idea. Does ULA allow ground crew near a fueled Atlas or Delta?Every launch vehicle contractor has a crew that is set up to go near a fueled launch vehicle for troubleshooting. It is not a rare event.
Quote from: Jim on 01/22/2018 07:53 pmQuote from: envy887 on 01/22/2018 05:20 pmQuote from: Jim on 01/19/2018 12:36 pmIt is a common practice to go near a fueled rocket. See Ice teams, red teams, closeout crew, etc. It WAS common practice to go near a fueled Shuttle stack. That does not make it great idea. Does ULA allow ground crew near a fueled Atlas or Delta?Every launch vehicle contractor has a crew that is set up to go near a fueled launch vehicle for troubleshooting. It is not a rare event.Except SpaceX I presume?
Quote from: mn on 01/22/2018 12:48 pmQuote from: woods170 on 01/22/2018 09:59 amI'll pick this one up for Jim given that he has answered this very question many, many times, and people still keep asking the question.Basically:On Orion and SLS NASA runs the show entirely, down the smallest little details. They are involved in everything and the contractors don't do anything without NASA permission. For example: NASA tells Boeing: go build SLS with a core stage driven by four RS-25s and boosted by two 5-segment ATK SRBs using the design you'll find in your mailbox".On CCP NASA sets high-level *cough* requirements and basically tells the contractors: "Realize those requirements the way you see fit. Just as long as your solutions meet the requirements".For example: NASA tells Boeing: go do your thing as long as it gets us a service that can transport 4 astronauts to the ISS.NASA than engages in insight and oversight into what the contractors do. But the solutions are conceived, developed, integrated and tested by the contractors and are not the brainchild of NASA.And exactly for this reason does NASA not automatically trust the contractor's solutions. Those solutions need to prove themselves. And that's why - for example - Falcon 9 Block 5 needs to fly at least seven times before it can launch crew. It is also why - for example - the contractors will have to prove that they meet the 1-in-270 LOC requirement.Naturally, NASA will trust its own design for SLS with just one unmanned test-flight but not trust someone else's design until it has flown seven times.That's it. Plain and simple. Don't like it? Too bad, because this is the reality for SLS/Orion vs. CCP. And it is not going to change.Please clarify:Does this mean that their design doesn't need to meet the 1/270 requirement?Or because they designed it they are confident that it does indeed meet that requirement? If SLS/Orion would be flying the same mission profile (crew to ISS) than IMO it would have to meet the 1/270 requirement.However, SLS/Orion is not intended for Crew-to-ISS missions. The LOC/LOM numbers for the SLS/Orion combo are different (and, as far as I know) not generally known to the public.And yes: because NASA designed its own vehicles and "runs the show" for its own vehicles NASA is confident its own vehicles will meet its own requirements. One clear indicator to this is that ASAP has been reporting on the CCP LOC numbers for years now but hasn't spent a single word, on the LOC numbers for SLS/Orion, in their reporting.
Quote from: woods170 on 01/22/2018 09:59 amI'll pick this one up for Jim given that he has answered this very question many, many times, and people still keep asking the question.Basically:On Orion and SLS NASA runs the show entirely, down the smallest little details. They are involved in everything and the contractors don't do anything without NASA permission. For example: NASA tells Boeing: go build SLS with a core stage driven by four RS-25s and boosted by two 5-segment ATK SRBs using the design you'll find in your mailbox".On CCP NASA sets high-level *cough* requirements and basically tells the contractors: "Realize those requirements the way you see fit. Just as long as your solutions meet the requirements".For example: NASA tells Boeing: go do your thing as long as it gets us a service that can transport 4 astronauts to the ISS.NASA than engages in insight and oversight into what the contractors do. But the solutions are conceived, developed, integrated and tested by the contractors and are not the brainchild of NASA.And exactly for this reason does NASA not automatically trust the contractor's solutions. Those solutions need to prove themselves. And that's why - for example - Falcon 9 Block 5 needs to fly at least seven times before it can launch crew. It is also why - for example - the contractors will have to prove that they meet the 1-in-270 LOC requirement.Naturally, NASA will trust its own design for SLS with just one unmanned test-flight but not trust someone else's design until it has flown seven times.That's it. Plain and simple. Don't like it? Too bad, because this is the reality for SLS/Orion vs. CCP. And it is not going to change.Please clarify:Does this mean that their design doesn't need to meet the 1/270 requirement?Or because they designed it they are confident that it does indeed meet that requirement?
I'll pick this one up for Jim given that he has answered this very question many, many times, and people still keep asking the question.Basically:On Orion and SLS NASA runs the show entirely, down the smallest little details. They are involved in everything and the contractors don't do anything without NASA permission. For example: NASA tells Boeing: go build SLS with a core stage driven by four RS-25s and boosted by two 5-segment ATK SRBs using the design you'll find in your mailbox".On CCP NASA sets high-level *cough* requirements and basically tells the contractors: "Realize those requirements the way you see fit. Just as long as your solutions meet the requirements".For example: NASA tells Boeing: go do your thing as long as it gets us a service that can transport 4 astronauts to the ISS.NASA than engages in insight and oversight into what the contractors do. But the solutions are conceived, developed, integrated and tested by the contractors and are not the brainchild of NASA.And exactly for this reason does NASA not automatically trust the contractor's solutions. Those solutions need to prove themselves. And that's why - for example - Falcon 9 Block 5 needs to fly at least seven times before it can launch crew. It is also why - for example - the contractors will have to prove that they meet the 1-in-270 LOC requirement.Naturally, NASA will trust its own design for SLS with just one unmanned test-flight but not trust someone else's design until it has flown seven times.That's it. Plain and simple. Don't like it? Too bad, because this is the reality for SLS/Orion vs. CCP. And it is not going to change.
... The NASA TPS team actually had to visit museums to study the Apollo capsule and basically reverse engineer the shield. And they then discovered they were rediscovering issues the Apollo engineers encountered 50 years ago....
Quote from: Johnnyhinbos on 01/22/2018 08:06 pm... The NASA TPS team actually had to visit museums to study the Apollo capsule and basically reverse engineer the shield. And they then discovered they were rediscovering issues the Apollo engineers encountered 50 years ago....Can you please provide links with more details? Sounds like an interesting story.
Here's a really interesting presentation by Jeremy Vander Kam given at the Ames Research Center in 2015. He's well spoken, intelligent, and the material was really interesting. "Burn to Shine: Experiences and Lessons from the Orion Heat Shield"I highly recommend watching it...
Quote from: whatever11235 on 01/22/2018 07:47 am{snip}Can you please expand on this? Why are rules not the same? As I understand it, NASA is collaborating heavily with SpaceX on Dragon2 design. How is it different with regards to their vendors for SLS/Orion?I'll pick this one up for Jim given that he has answered this very question many, many times, and people still keep asking the question.Basically:On Orion and SLS NASA runs the show entirely, down the smallest little details. They are involved in everything and the contractors don't do anything without NASA permission. For example: NASA tells Boeing: go build SLS with a core stage driven by four RS-25s and boosted by two 5-segment ATK SRBs using the design you'll find in your mailbox".On CCP NASA sets high-level *cough* requirements and basically tells the contractors: "Realize those requirements the way you see fit. Just as long as your solutions meet the requirements".For example: NASA tells Boeing: go do your thing as long as it gets us a service that can transport 4 astronauts to the ISS.NASA than engages in insight and oversight into what the contractors do. But the solutions are conceived, developed, integrated and tested by the contractors and are not the brainchild of NASA.And exactly for this reason does NASA not automatically trust the contractor's solutions. Those solutions need to prove themselves. And that's why - for example - Falcon 9 Block 5 needs to fly at least seven times before it can launch crew. It is also why - for example - the contractors will have to prove that they meet the 1-in-270 LOC requirement.Naturally, NASA will trust its own design for SLS with just one unmanned test-flight but not trust someone else's design until it has flown seven times.That's it. Plain and simple. Don't like it? Too bad, because this is the reality for SLS/Orion vs. CCP. And it is not going to change.
{snip}Can you please expand on this? Why are rules not the same? As I understand it, NASA is collaborating heavily with SpaceX on Dragon2 design. How is it different with regards to their vendors for SLS/Orion?
When dealing with quality and safety standards it is irrelevant whether you do something yourself or someone else does it. The same quality standard applies. The SLS's main requirements document should specify its LOC and LOM requirements.A difference between the SLS and Orion's LOC to the ISS and CCDev LOC needs explaining and authorising. Possibly by Congress.The SLS having multiple mission types means that instead of having a single LOC it requirements should contain a table of LOCs and LOMs.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 01/23/2018 01:34 amWhen dealing with quality and safety standards it is irrelevant whether you do something yourself or someone else does it. The same quality standard applies. The SLS's main requirements document should specify its LOC and LOM requirements.A difference between the SLS and Orion's LOC to the ISS and CCDev LOC needs explaining and authorising. Possibly by Congress.The SLS having multiple mission types means that instead of having a single LOC it requirements should contain a table of LOCs and LOMs.Let me put it this way: when was the last time NASA had to explain something to itself?Answer: Challenger and Columbia.Additionally: notice the bolded statement above? Well, NASA doesn't agree with it, because they don't require their own vehicle (SLS) to launch unmanned seven times before they put a crewed vehicle on top of it.It is plain and simple: SLS is a NASA vehicle. As such they DO NOT apply the same standards to SLS, that they apply to a vehicle built by someone else.
Quote from: woods170 on 01/23/2018 07:15 amQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 01/23/2018 01:34 amWhen dealing with quality and safety standards it is irrelevant whether you do something yourself or someone else does it. The same quality standard applies. The SLS's main requirements document should specify its LOC and LOM requirements.A difference between the SLS and Orion's LOC to the ISS and CCDev LOC needs explaining and authorising. Possibly by Congress.The SLS having multiple mission types means that instead of having a single LOC it requirements should contain a table of LOCs and LOMs.Let me put it this way: when was the last time NASA had to explain something to itself?Answer: Challenger and Columbia.Additionally: notice the bolded statement above? Well, NASA doesn't agree with it, because they don't require their own vehicle (SLS) to launch unmanned seven times before they put a crewed vehicle on top of it.It is plain and simple: SLS is a NASA vehicle. As such they DO NOT apply the same standards to SLS, that they apply to a vehicle built by someone else.Either SLS will get cancelled or NASA will get caught.
Either SLS will get cancelled or NASA will get caught.
A difference between the SLS and Orion's LOC to the ISS and CCDev LOC needs explaining and authorising. Possibly by Congress.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 01/23/2018 08:57 amEither SLS will get cancelled or NASA will get caught.Nonsense. Caught? That applies that there is a law being broke. Wrong. There is nothing to be caught.
Congress is specifying the SLS's high level requirements. It can add LOC and LOM to maximum payload mass.