5.5 Segment Ares I

[Antares]

Is NASA subject to Nunn-McCurdy?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn-McCurdy_Amendment
The Nunn–McCurdy Amendment or Nunn–McCurdy Provision, introduced in the United States 1982 Defense Authorization Act and made permanent in 1983, is designed to curtail cost growth in American weapons procurement programs.

It requires cost growth of more than 15% to be notified to the United States Congress, and calls for the termination of programs whose total cost grew by more than 25% over the original estimate, unless the Secretary of Defense submits a detailed explanation certifying that the program is essential to the national security, that no suitable alternative of lesser cost is available, that new estimates of total program costs are reasonable, and that the management structure is (or has been made) adequate to control costs.

Very rarely is a program actually cancelled under this provision—Congress normally regards the explanations from the Secretary of Defense as acceptable—but it has led to many changes to project management. SBIRS has been affected by the provision in 2002 and again in 2005, and the NPOESS meteorology satellites have been redesigned with lesser capabilities after being affected by the provision.

In 2006 the House of Representatives proposed amending the provision to require a detailed explanation, including information about possible alternatives, at the 15%-cost-growth mark.

[yinzer]

This matrix business!  The matrix allows managers to rank areas that need their attention in the program.  There is always risk in development.  It does not mean that Ares I won't meet its targets.  Indeed, Ares I *has* to meet its targets!  NASA is not going to develop a launch vehicle that doesn't do what the program needs it to do.

 - Ed Kyle

The Shuttle *had* to meet its performance targets too.  But it didn't.  Life went on, the space station slipped twenty years, CRAF got cancelled, a bunch of research didn't happen.  There's nothing stopping the same thing from happening this time around.  Ares I looks like it should be able to get the Orion to ISS without too much difficulty.  It's easy to imagine a call to "revamp the Constellation Architecture to save life-cycle costs and reduce the chances of mission failure" happening at about the same time big checks have to start getting written for Ares V.

[edkyle99]

NASA won't cancel the program.   NASA almost never cancels programs.

Sure they do.  X-33, X-34, and X-38 all come to mind. 

Research efforts, all of them.  NASA's real human space system development efforts have a much different record.  Ares/Orion isn't like X-33.  It is like Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle.  It will fly because it has to fly.

 - Ed Kyle

[manlymissileman]

Is Ares I meeting its targets?  (safe, simple, soon)

[manlymissileman]

NASA won't cancel the program.   NASA almost never cancels programs.

Sure they do.  X-33, X-34, and X-38 all come to mind. 

... It will fly because it has to fly.
...

On the other hand, one can hammer a square peg into a round hole given enough time and budget, surely.  (perhaps that's what is called for?) However, sometimes cutting one's losses and going back to the drawing board is a better solution.  I don't know what the current status of this project is, though.

[MrTim]

Is Ares I meeting its targets?  (safe, simple, soon)

"Safe Simple Soon" is a slogan... not Ares I "targets".

[Scotty]

As to Ares I, it is more like:
Not quite as safe as first thought, no where as simple as first thought, and no where as soon as first thought.

[ckiki lwai]

Going back on topic, Scotty wrote this in the "more SRB's"  thread:

One point that is not well known outside the KSC engineering and operations world, there is a sixteen (16) segment limit to the number of segments that can be with in the VAB at any one time.
That limit has to do with the Quanity - Distance / Explosive Equivalancy limitation placed upon the VAB.
In my opinion the number is totally arbitrary and is based on just a judgment call, but it is on the books and has been so for 30 plus years.
To change the segment limit would require a high level NASA manager to "stick his neck out", and I do not see that happening.

And, how many segments do we have at the moment:
2x5.5 + 5 = 16
Thus Ares I can't go 5.5 segments!
Unless, like Scotty said, a high level NASA manager to sticks his neck out.

[kevin-rf]

Going back on topic, Scotty wrote this in the "more SRB's"  thread:

One point that is not well known outside the KSC engineering and operations world, there is a sixteen (16) segment limit to the number of segments that can be with in the VAB at any one time.
That limit has to do with the Quanity - Distance / Explosive Equivalancy limitation placed upon the VAB.
In my opinion the number is totally arbitrary and is based on just a judgment call, but it is on the books and has been so for 30 plus years.
To change the segment limit would require a high level NASA manager to "stick his neck out", and I do not see that happening.

And, how many segments do we have at the moment:
2x5.5 + 5 = 16
Thus Ares I can't go 5.5 segments!
Unless, like Scotty said, a high level NASA manager to sticks his neck out.

That doesn't work, that means only one shuttle can be stacked at a time. I am sure there have been more than one stacked shuttle in the VAB during the program history.

[psloss]

That doesn't work, that means only one shuttle can be stacked at a time. I am sure there have been more than one stacked shuttle in the VAB during the program history.

Each shuttle has two four-segment boosters, so 16 allows for two shuttles.

Edit: when they did this there weren't 16 segments in the VAB, but there were 24 in the near vicinity:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1823.msg24609#msg24609

[kkattula]

...

It will fly because it has to fly.

 - Ed Kyle

Why does it have to?  Will the world end if it doesn't?  Will the commissars have everyone shot? Are NASA infallible like the Pope?  Why can't they just say "this one isn't coming together, let's try again" ?

The goal is important, not the means.

NASA seem to be mesmerized by their own legend: "Failure is not an option."

But when failure is not an option, success can be very, very expensive.

[A_M_Swallow]

And, how many segments do we have at the moment:
2x5.5 + 5 = 16
Thus Ares I can't go 5.5 segments!
Unless, like Scotty said, a high level NASA manager to sticks his neck out.

Do not forget the LON Ares I, it may not fly but it has to be waiting in an assembled form.

2*5.5 + 5 + 5 = 21

DIRECT will need a LON J-120/J-232.

The VAB may need modifying to take the extra segments.

[jimvela]

Do not forget the LON Ares I, it may not fly but it has to be waiting in an assembled form.

Where are there requirements that a LON capability must exist for the VSE or ARES-ISS launches? 

These are not orbiters and do not share the fragile TPS that drives this need on present launches.

[A_M_Swallow]

Do not forget the LON Ares I, it may not fly but it has to be waiting in an assembled form.

Where are there requirements that a LON capability must exist for the VSE or ARES-ISS launches? 

These are not orbiters and do not share the fragile TPS that drives this need on present launches.

The same one that says the sister ships of the Titanic need a complete set of lifeboats.

In this matter the TPS being fragile is nearly irrelevant.

[Antares]

I'm sorry.  We're not amateurs here.  We use requirements documents.  As jimvela says, there is no requirement for LON rescue for Ares I.  The current STS LON is driven by the delicate, exposed RCC and tile on the orbiter.  The Orion TPS design has it protected in the spacecraft adapter outside the airstream.

[kraisee]

LON for an inline design could be a pre-stacked and pre-checked-out EDS/PLF/SCA/Spacecraft sitting in the corner of a HighBay.

Whatever is the next vehicle on the flow could have its original payload offloaded and replaced in an emergency.   And if we have all the vehicle umbilicals mated in the VAB prior to rollout (requires an umbilical tower), then at-the-Pad processing can be greatly expedited.

Of course that's another argument for having a high flight rate - you would always have a vehicle near to being 'ready' if you have a dozen of them flying every year.   It's quite a lot less likely to have something near-ready if you have a system which you can only afford to fly four times a year though.

And to mount a rescue for a crew trapped in Lunar orbit would require both Ares-I and Ares-VI.   A single J-232 could do that rescue though.

Ross.

[A_M_Swallow]

I'm sorry.  We're not amateurs here.  We use requirements documents.  As jimvela says, there is no requirement for LON rescue for Ares I.  The current STS LON is driven by the delicate, exposed RCC and tile on the orbiter.  The Orion TPS design has it protected in the spacecraft adapter outside the airstream.

True the correct word is cowboys.

This is an obvious safety matter.  One to which ever schoolboy in the world knows the answer.  They and the press will say so following the first Orion accident.  The accident could be in the SM or oxygen system or avionics or...  Not having a planned LON (or alternative) has a too obvious financial motive.

NASA can only claim to be obeying orders if some else wrote the orders.

[jimvela]

True the correct word is cowboys.

This is an obvious safety matter.  One to which ever schoolboy in the world knows the answer. 

No offense, but that is garbage.  The lesson learned is that you shouldn't put a fragile mission-critical subsystem alongside a launch vehicle and out in the airstream.  Further, you should NEVER put humans (or even cargo you care about) beside the lower stages.

Quick question:  Do you make your morning commute with an ambulance, police car, and tanker in escort?  That's an equally obvious safety issue, and every schoolboy who's never actually driven anything anywhere might pontificate about...  Those whom practice in the real world see it for a ridiculous proposition, just like LON for a capsule launcher.

They and the press will say so following the first Orion accident.  The accident could be in the SM or oxygen system or avionics or...  Not having a planned LON (or alternative) has a too obvious financial motive.

Again, rubbish.  All of those things, are either properly designed or they are not.  I trust that the design review process will find the obvious flaws.  Flight heritage and murphy's law will find the rest.

The Russians have this part right:  Fly it, fix it, fly it some more, then repeat.

There simply isn't any guarantee that you have the right capability to rescue when there isn't a fragile TPS that is  overwhelmingly the highest risk.  In your example, assume a life support failure that causes lack of oxygen.  Crew's dead, the 2nd launch is then a recovery and investigation mission.  The only way to even hope to rescue would be to have the 2nd LV sitting at the pad and ready to launch immediately behind the 1st LV.  Even then, no guarantee of rescue.


Rocket flight, just by the physics of it, is harsh and dangerous.  Some risk will have to be assumed. 

[BeanEstimator]

It is very hard to estimate cost when you are willing to do anything to have your pet architecture fly, regardless of the effect on other elements or to schedule and budget.

This reminds me of a joke I heard at a cost estimating event.  Came from a "grey beard":

Q:  Why is great to be a cost estimator? 
A:  Because you're never wrong, it's guaranteed that what will be built is not what is being estimated.

 

[ckiki lwai]

Each shuttle has two four-segment boosters, so 16 allows for two shuttles.

Edit: when they did this there weren't 16 segments in the VAB, but there were 24 in the near vicinity:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1823.msg24609#msg24609

I followed the link, but there wasn't any info about 24 segments, only pictures of 2 shuttle stacks (which looked very cool btw).