Author Topic: Will the falcon heavy be human rated? (As of 2018)  (Read 23879 times)

Offline JamesH65

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1559
  • Liked: 1739
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Will the falcon heavy be human rated? (As of 2018)
« Reply #40 on: 03/09/2018 10:16 am »
It's all relative though, someone's matter of fact can be interpreted as "in your face" by others (and we have an example right here  ;) )

I think a more revealing Eric Berger article is this one: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/if-you-think-nasa-is-frustrated-with-spacex-youre-probably-right

Especially his comment below the article:

Quote
There are things said publicly by NASA, and there are things said privately. I am fortunate to have some pretty good contacts high in NASA's administration who speak to me privately. They are not amused or enthused by this.

I will agree with you that a lot of younger engineers at NASA are very rah-rah when it comes to SpaceX. They see what the company is doing, and they love it. But, for the most part, they don't make the decisions.

Government agency in shown up by private company shock!

So, NASA, who until now have been the sole people able to send people to the moon (or at least, once were), are not amused by a private company intending to do something similar, much cheaper.

I have no idea why people think this is unexpected. Any incumbents get a bit anzy when their claim to fame is at risk. They think they have a right to maintain their ivory tower situation and it comes as shock when they realise its about to fall down. Of course they are not amused.

This happens all over the place, not just in Space.

Offline swampcat

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
  • Tidewater Virginia
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 2500
Re: Will the falcon heavy be human rated? (As of 2018)
« Reply #41 on: 03/09/2018 11:51 am »
Quote
I will agree with you that a lot of younger engineers at NASA are very rah-rah when it comes to SpaceX. They see what the company is doing, and they love it. But, for the most part, they don't make the decisions.

Those decision makers will retire some day. Hopefully, soon. IMO, NASA could benefit from listening to some of those younger engineers.
Sent from my desktop using my fingers.

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Will the falcon heavy be human rated? (As of 2018)
« Reply #42 on: 03/09/2018 02:17 pm »
Quote
I will agree with you that a lot of younger engineers at NASA are very rah-rah when it comes to SpaceX. They see what the company is doing, and they love it. But, for the most part, they don't make the decisions.

Those decision makers will retire some day. Hopefully, soon. IMO, NASA could benefit from listening to some of those younger engineers.

More useful would be key retirements in Congress, in both parties, because they hold NASA's checkbook. The issue is mainly geographic; Alabama, Colorado, Florida etc.
DM

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Will the falcon heavy be human rated? (As of 2018)
« Reply #43 on: 03/09/2018 02:55 pm »
This thread is weird. People are shouting at each others, yet at the end of the day, truth is: neither Orion nor Dragon 2 will get a manned circumlunar flight anytime soon.

I mean, the crewed Orion EM-1 SLS vs crewed Dragon 2 on FH - the RACE is... not happening.

Orion circumlunar on early SLS was briefly considered and died pretty fast  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42319.0

Meanwhile Musk dropped circumlunar Dragon because he no longer believes in Falcon Heavy and now focuses on BFR / BFS.
Musk once thought (2011 ?)  that strapping three Falcon 9 together would be easy and get Falcon Heavy pretty fast.
Ding dong, he was wrong, and Falcon Heavy now has fallen out of favor.

the two events (Falcon Heavy fell out favor and will not be human rated AND NASA won't fly a crewed Orion on EM-1) are mostly UNRELATED.

Just sayin' ;)

As for Eric Berger, while he is certainly a very well respected journalist, everything he writes shall not be read as the holy GOSPEL.

how shocking: Eric Berger, someday, may be wrong
« Last Edit: 03/09/2018 03:01 pm by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Will the falcon heavy be human rated? (As of 2018)
« Reply #44 on: 03/09/2018 03:48 pm »
This thread is weird. People are shouting at each others, yet at the end of the day, truth is: neither Orion nor Dragon 2 will get a manned circumlunar flight anytime soon.

I mean, the crewed Orion EM-1 SLS vs crewed Dragon 2 on FH - the RACE is... not happening.

Orion circumlunar on early SLS was briefly considered and died pretty fast  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42319.0

Meanwhile Musk dropped circumlunar Dragon because he no longer believes in Falcon Heavy and now focuses on BFR / BFS.
Musk once thought (2011 ?)  that strapping three Falcon 9 together would be easy and get Falcon Heavy pretty fast.
Ding dong, he was wrong, and Falcon Heavy now has fallen out of favor.

the two events (Falcon Heavy fell out favor and will not be human rated AND NASA won't fly a crewed Orion on EM-1) are mostly UNRELATED.

Just sayin' ;)

As for Eric Berger, while he is certainly a very well respected journalist, everything he writes shall not be read as the holy GOSPEL.

how shocking: Eric Berger, someday, may be wrong !

Musk no longer believes in Falcon Heavy? Where are you getting this? Falcon Heavy was never SpaceX's preferred exploration architecture. It can be (and still might be) used for this, but it's primary purpose is to enhance the reusability of the Falcon architecture in the conventional launch market.

That reusability is fundamental to the pivot to BFR, as it allows SpaceX to double their launch rate while still transitioning 90% of their resources to BFR.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Will the falcon heavy be human rated? (As of 2018)
« Reply #45 on: 03/09/2018 04:40 pm »
My point still stands. Just compare Musk IAC 2016 and IAC 2017 speeches. In 2017 he recognized that Falcon Heavy had been harder than he thought at the begining and, what's more, that BFR / BFS will actually replace them ASAP. Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy (and Dragon) will get new markets and bring money to SpaceX in the near term, but sooner rather than later, BFR/BFS are bound to replace them.

I'm not inventing anything: that was the core of Musk IAC 2017 speech.

Quote
Falcon Heavy was never SpaceX's preferred exploration architecture.

How do you know that ? do you think BFR /BFS already existed in 2010 - 2012 ?

what I mean is: SpaceX plans are fast moving targets. You can't be sure that Musk 2011 master plan did not involved Falcon Heavy, Dragon, and different architectures and no BFR/BFS whatsoever.
« Last Edit: 03/09/2018 04:47 pm by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Will the falcon heavy be human rated? (As of 2018)
« Reply #46 on: 03/09/2018 05:37 pm »
what I mean is: SpaceX plans are fast moving targets. You can't be sure that Musk 2011 master plan did not involved Falcon Heavy, Dragon, and different architectures and no BFR/BFS whatsoever.

There's no evidence that it did. We know SpaceX was testing hardware for Raptor as early as 2012 and that SpaceX was already planning to do Mars HSF missions with a much larger vehicle, the MCT/ITS/BFR. There were also the Falcon X and XX concepts.

I don't think SpaceX ever believed that FH was was the best solution for human exploration missions.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Will the falcon heavy be human rated? (As of 2018)
« Reply #47 on: 03/09/2018 06:01 pm »
I've been there since 2008. When this (well informed) forum started discussing Raptor, it was a LH2 engine

Some history here.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/03/spacex-advances-drive-mars-rocket-raptor-power/

A pretty good summary of the prehistory of Musk Mars plans and BFR / BFS.

Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline rakaydos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2825
  • Liked: 1869
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Will the falcon heavy be human rated? (As of 2018)
« Reply #48 on: 03/09/2018 06:32 pm »
what I mean is: SpaceX plans are fast moving targets. You can't be sure that Musk 2011 master plan did not involved Falcon Heavy, Dragon, and different architectures and no BFR/BFS whatsoever.

There's no evidence that it did. We know SpaceX was testing hardware for Raptor as early as 2012 and that SpaceX was already planning to do Mars HSF missions with a much larger vehicle, the MCT/ITS/BFR. There were also the Falcon X and XX concepts.

I don't think SpaceX ever believed that FH was was the best solution for human exploration missions.
The falcon Heavy was SUPPOSED to be a quick and cheap diversion into heavy lift to help pay for the mars program. It was never intended to be as powerful as it is now, which is good because it was never intended to take as long or be as expensive as it was.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Will the falcon heavy be human rated? (As of 2018)
« Reply #49 on: 03/09/2018 06:56 pm »
what I mean is: SpaceX plans are fast moving targets. You can't be sure that Musk 2011 master plan did not involved Falcon Heavy, Dragon, and different architectures and no BFR/BFS whatsoever.

There's no evidence that it did. We know SpaceX was testing hardware for Raptor as early as 2012 and that SpaceX was already planning to do Mars HSF missions with a much larger vehicle, the MCT/ITS/BFR. There were also the Falcon X and XX concepts.

I don't think SpaceX ever believed that FH was was the best solution for human exploration missions.

There was plenty early on talk about FH making many trips to Mars, Red Dragon, etc.  None of these talked about FH carrying people there.  So, Musk's master plan did have a Mars preparatory role for FH, but BFR is now rolling ahead quickly and FH's role is fading.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Will the falcon heavy be human rated? (As of 2018)
« Reply #50 on: 03/10/2018 04:19 pm »
What are we arguing about? I'm lost.

Musk plans change. But he's been planning a big fricken rocket for his Mars ambitions for a very long time. That Raptor was initially LH2 is completely irrelevant.

Most of this argument is more or less irrelevant to the narrowly scoped topic as well. FH will be human rated if there is a need and if someone pays for it. If BFS slips a lot, that strengthens the SLS/Orion fantasy, er, argument. So Musk might then choose to rate it to show what's possible. Or not.  NASA style "rating" isn't required for a tourist flight around the moon.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Will the falcon heavy be human rated? (As of 2018)
« Reply #51 on: 03/11/2018 07:53 am »
The thread started to go south (IMHO) with the Eric Berger thing - more or less that crewed Orion on EM-1 and circumular Dragon on FH with two passengers were in a kind of race. NASA vs SpaceX.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2018 07:55 am by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Caleb Cattuzzo

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • California,USA
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Will the falcon heavy be human rated? (As of 2018)
« Reply #52 on: 03/22/2018 08:08 pm »
I started this threat just wondering if the manned spacex lunar mission would happen and it turned into this ;D
There is no strife,no prejudice,no national conflict in space as yet.Its hazards are hostile to us all.

Offline cferreir

Re: Will the falcon heavy be human rated? (As of 2018)
« Reply #53 on: 04/27/2018 04:15 pm »
Would it be that hard since it's just three human rated cores, or would that triple a lot of risk numbers?

Still have not read a response to this post. If you strap 3 Block 5 together doesn't that make the FH human rated by default? Obviously I assume they launch the FH a couple more times to validate that there is no issue with the 3 booster interaction. Assuming that there is no issue discovered it would seem to me that by default FH block 5 would be human rated. (Again, I am not asking about IF it should be done as this thread has explored, I am saying that it IS done by default) Can someone with more NASA experience comment......

Thanks.

Online DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1679
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: Will the falcon heavy be human rated? (As of 2018)
« Reply #54 on: 04/27/2018 05:18 pm »
Would it be that hard since it's just three human rated cores, or would that triple a lot of risk numbers?

Still have not read a response to this post. If you strap 3 Block 5 together doesn't that make the FH human rated by default? Obviously I assume they launch the FH a couple more times to validate that there is no issue with the 3 booster interaction. Assuming that there is no issue discovered it would seem to me that by default FH block 5 would be human rated. (Again, I am not asking about IF it should be done as this thread has explored, I am saying that it IS done by default) Can someone with more NASA experience comment......

Thanks.

Even if you accepted the individual components at face value an FH launch isn't the same as an F9.  There are sequences as part of a FH launch that are not present in F9 launch (side-booster separation for instance). 

This is a simplistic view of issues.  In reality you will find a lot of validation would be necessary.

Offline cferreir

Re: Will the falcon heavy be human rated? (As of 2018)
« Reply #55 on: 04/27/2018 05:48 pm »
Would it be that hard since it's just three human rated cores, or would that triple a lot of risk numbers?

Still have not read a response to this post. If you strap 3 Block 5 together doesn't that make the FH human rated by default? Obviously I assume they launch the FH a couple more times to validate that there is no issue with the 3 booster interaction. Assuming that there is no issue discovered it would seem to me that by default FH block 5 would be human rated. (Again, I am not asking about IF it should be done as this thread has explored, I am saying that it IS done by default) Can someone with more NASA experience comment......

Thanks.

Even if you accepted the individual components at face value an FH launch isn't the same as an F9.  There are sequences as part of a FH launch that are not present in F9 launch (side-booster separation for instance). 

This is a simplistic view of issues.  In reality you will find a lot of validation would be necessary.

The non-single stick issues are going to get validated as more FH are launched.....Why would a human-rated FH separate differently than a normal FH? How many SLS launches are going to happen to validate the booster separation? 2? FH will launch at least 3 times.....Can someone familiar with the process respond please....

Online DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1679
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: Will the falcon heavy be human rated? (As of 2018)
« Reply #56 on: 04/27/2018 05:51 pm »
Would it be that hard since it's just three human rated cores, or would that triple a lot of risk numbers?

Still have not read a response to this post. If you strap 3 Block 5 together doesn't that make the FH human rated by default? Obviously I assume they launch the FH a couple more times to validate that there is no issue with the 3 booster interaction. Assuming that there is no issue discovered it would seem to me that by default FH block 5 would be human rated. (Again, I am not asking about IF it should be done as this thread has explored, I am saying that it IS done by default) Can someone with more NASA experience comment......

Thanks.

Even if you accepted the individual components at face value an FH launch isn't the same as an F9.  There are sequences as part of a FH launch that are not present in F9 launch (side-booster separation for instance). 

This is a simplistic view of issues.  In reality you will find a lot of validation would be necessary.

The non-single stick issues are going to get validated as more FH are launched.....Why would a human-rated FH separate differently than a normal FH? How many SLS launches are going to happen to validate the booster separation? 2? FH will launch at least 3 times.....Can someone familiar with the process respond please....
You misread my post.  I was comparing FH to F9.  There are numerous other differences.  NASA would not hand wave them away.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: Will the falcon heavy be human rated? (As of 2018)
« Reply #57 on: 04/28/2018 03:00 am »
Would it be that hard since it's just three human rated cores, or would that triple a lot of risk numbers?

Still have not read a response to this post. If you strap 3 Block 5 together doesn't that make the FH human rated by default? Obviously I assume they launch the FH a couple more times to validate that there is no issue with the 3 booster interaction. Assuming that there is no issue discovered it would seem to me that by default FH block 5 would be human rated. (Again, I am not asking about IF it should be done as this thread has explored, I am saying that it IS done by default) Can someone with more NASA experience comment......

Thanks.

No.  The basic assumption underlying this question is wrong.  First, the center booster of the FH is not the same as an F9 booster.  Also, the vehicle experiences different forces during flight, flies a different trajectory, has an added major flight event (booster separation), etc.  All the data collection and analysis for human rating must be collected/treated individually and not as some plug-and-play with their F9 data.  Your comment about launching FH "a couple more times to validate that there is no issue with the 3 booster interaction" also misses the mark.  You seem to be working under the assumption that some flight validation is sufficient to achieve human rating.  How many times has Atlas V launched successfully?  Yet, ULA is still having to do a lot of work to man rate their vehicle for Boeing's Commercial Crew project.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 983
Re: Will the falcon heavy be human rated? (As of 2018)
« Reply #58 on: 04/28/2018 01:00 pm »
Would it be that hard since it's just three human rated cores, or would that triple a lot of risk numbers?

Still have not read a response to this post. If you strap 3 Block 5 together doesn't that make the FH human rated by default? Obviously I assume they launch the FH a couple more times to validate that there is no issue with the 3 booster interaction. Assuming that there is no issue discovered it would seem to me that by default FH block 5 would be human rated. (Again, I am not asking about IF it should be done as this thread has explored, I am saying that it IS done by default) Can someone with more NASA experience comment......

Thanks.

No.  The basic assumption underlying this question is wrong.  First, the center booster of the FH is not the same as an F9 booster.  Also, the vehicle experiences different forces during flight, flies a different trajectory, has an added major flight event (booster separation), etc.  All the data collection and analysis for human rating must be collected/treated individually and not as some plug-and-play with their F9 data.  Your comment about launching FH "a couple more times to validate that there is no issue with the 3 booster interaction" also misses the mark.  You seem to be working under the assumption that some flight validation is sufficient to achieve human rating.  How many times has Atlas V launched successfully?  Yet, ULA is still having to do a lot of work to man rate their vehicle for Boeing's Commercial Crew project.

While I agree with your points especially about FH certification, NASA insists that SpaceX fly the F9 block 5 7 times to rate it for Commercial Crew.
And conversely SLS has no such multi-flight requirement, probably because it has received the sacrament of NASA oversight of the design.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2018 01:01 pm by philw1776 »
FULL SEND!!!!

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: Will the falcon heavy be human rated? (As of 2018)
« Reply #59 on: 04/29/2018 03:22 pm »
No.  The basic assumption underlying this question is wrong.  First, the center booster of the FH is not the same as an F9 booster.  Also, the vehicle experiences different forces during flight, flies a different trajectory, has an added major flight event (booster separation), etc.  All the data collection and analysis for human rating must be collected/treated individually and not as some plug-and-play with their F9 data.  Your comment about launching FH "a couple more times to validate that there is no issue with the 3 booster interaction" also misses the mark.  You seem to be working under the assumption that some flight validation is sufficient to achieve human rating.  How many times has Atlas V launched successfully?  Yet, ULA is still having to do a lot of work to man rate their vehicle for Boeing's Commercial Crew project.

While I agree with your points especially about FH certification, NASA insists that SpaceX fly the F9 block 5 7 times to rate it for Commercial Crew.
And conversely SLS has no such multi-flight requirement, probably because it has received the sacrament of NASA oversight of the design.

Of course actual flight data/experience is an important part.  My point was that a series of successful flights on its own isn't sufficient.  There is also a significant amount of analysis, testing, validation and verification, etc.  Which is why Atlas V's man rating isn't just a rubber stamp.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0