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-rightEspecially his comment below the article:QuoteThere 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.
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.
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.
QuoteI 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.
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=42319.0Meanwhile 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 !
Falcon Heavy was never SpaceX's preferred exploration architecture.
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.
Quote from: Archibald on 03/09/2018 04:40 pmwhat 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.
Would it be that hard since it's just three human rated cores, or would that triple a lot of risk numbers?
Quote from: Nomadd on 02/26/2018 06:33 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.
Quote from: cferreir on 04/27/2018 04:15 pmQuote from: Nomadd on 02/26/2018 06:33 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.
Quote from: DigitalMan on 04/27/2018 05:18 pmQuote from: cferreir on 04/27/2018 04:15 pmQuote from: Nomadd on 02/26/2018 06:33 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....
Quote from: cferreir on 04/27/2018 04:15 pmQuote from: Nomadd on 02/26/2018 06:33 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.
Quote from: deruch on 04/28/2018 03:00 amNo. 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.
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.