Author Topic: Man rating EELVs  (Read 62809 times)

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 795
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #80 on: 02/18/2010 04:17 pm »
There's an aerial photograph showing the locations of the various pieces of Titan infrastructure on Ed Kyle's Space Launch Report. Google Maps shows the VIB being demolished. According to a press release by the company that did the work this happened fairly recently, so Google Maps may give an accurate picture of the state of the rest of the facilities. Moving north from the VIB you get to the SMAB which is very large and going further north you get to the SMARF which looks colossal.
« Last Edit: 02/18/2010 04:46 pm by mmeijeri »
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35960
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18340
  • Likes Given: 397
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #81 on: 02/18/2010 04:35 pm »
Could the third area in the HIF be used as a fully functional bay just like the other two?

There is nothing special about each bay in the HIF.  There is no electrical testing done in there.  Only mating of the components, which just requires a level floor.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 795
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #82 on: 02/19/2010 10:41 am »
There's an interesting table on page 8 of ULA's recent man-rating paper. It says that an Atlas 402 can lift 11,180kg to ISS orbit without any loss in performance due to eliminating black zones. That is roughly the mass of a Dream Chaser.

Under the heading 'impact point trace' it says the trajectory would avoid the North Atlantic and the Alps. How would they do this? I don't understand how you could avoid the Atlantic altogether, maybe the trajectory is shaped in such a way that the crew could land in warmer waters instead? Could they do that without major performance losses? Or are they depending on the spacecraft to have enough propulsive capability to avoid the North Atlantic?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Kitspacer

  • Member
  • Posts: 97
  • N.California
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #83 on: 02/20/2010 12:08 am »
Well, my concern with man-rating Delta or Atlas is simple, what is the history of either system with people?  Delta, as far as I am aware, has not been used in any human space flight.  Atlas, however, is full of bits that have been used in human space flight.  It is an evolution of the old Mercury lifter.  The engine is derived from a russian human-lift vehicles engine.  It seems a better fit to me, honestly.

Do intentions actually count? Energiya never lifted any actual humans.
I think they do. The Shuttle/STS was intended to be man-rated -as was Buran/Energia - and thus designed and built accordingly. The EELV's were not, because the USAF opted out of manned space altogether post Challenger.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 225
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #84 on: 03/07/2010 03:39 am »
It may be time to start synonymizing "man-rated" with "overdesigned" if we're going to start talking about intentions.  That's really what it is.  There's no objective technical basis for any man-rating requirements.  Disagree?  Prove me wrong.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35960
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18340
  • Likes Given: 397
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #85 on: 03/07/2010 12:42 pm »
The EELV's were not, because the USAF opted out of manned space altogether post Challenger.

Not true. 
a.  The USAF did not opt of manned space.  Only use of the shuttle as a launch vehicle.
b.  EELV's were to replace Titan, Delta and Atlas.
c,  There were no requirements defining manrating during EELV development.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #86 on: 04/09/2010 05:47 pm »
ULA's Jeff Patton gave a talk yesterday at Space Access 2010 describing ULA's work on the Commercial Crew Development program. Clark Lindsay has posted notes from the talk:

(bolding below is mine)

http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=19821
Quote
Jeff Patton (United Launch Alliance) - ULA's Support for NASA's Commercial Crew Development Program
- Shows video of ULA rockets starting back in 60s
- Can tell a bit more of their commercial crew efforts in the public now
- ULA is joint venture L-M and Boeing
- 1300 launches in 50 years
- Atlas V and Delta 4 are relatively new and up to date vehicles.
- Continually improving them
- 100% mission success for ULA
- Human spaceflight:
-- Atlas & Deltat heritage back to Mercury/Atlas and Gemini/Titan
-- In 2002, EELVs chosenby NASA to launch crewed Orbital Space Plane.
-- CCDev contract announced in Feb

- Atlas & Delta human rating history
-- worked with NASA in developing HR
-- After ESAS/Constellation started looking independently into commercial crew
-- Working with Bigelow for 5 years
-- He is comfortable with ULA pricewise
-- Independent review judged them capable of crew capable systems
-- Shows chart of Bigelow flight rate.
--- goes up to 25 per year by 2017

-- Systems-level human rating
- Reliability, emergency detection,
- Black zones for their vehicles are an urban myth
- Non-recuring costs $400M, recurring in $130M range (with Atlas 402)
- Ready in four years.

- LV commonality benefits
- Loss of Mission (LOM)/Loss of Crew (LOC)
-- beat 1 in 100 LOM, LOC est. meets NASA requirements.

- CCDev Emergency Detection System
-- investigate issues involved in designing the system
-- study failure scenarios.
- Working with Sierra Nevada Corp on Dreamchaser launch with Atlas
-- wind-tunnel tests, structural design, mission analysis
- Working with Boeing on a capsule approach
- Several on-going human rating studies

Q&A:
- How dependent on funding is the 4 years?
-- Could speed up with more funding.

- Issues of Atlas vs Delta
--- Will bring the both up to same level of readiness for next study phase.
--- Delta needs a more expensive pad if want to use another site.
-- Key is to use same vehicle for cargo and crew to build up reliability
- What about using Orbital's LAS?
-- Maybe. Haven't committed to any design yet.
- Delta II?
-- Can't find a market for it.
- Can the Cape handle 2 or 3 launches per day with Bigelow plus NASA payloads.
--- Bigelow will use more than one provider at more than one spaceport
- Asymmetric loads with Dreamchaser?
-- Think we can handle it un-shrouded but wind tunnel tests will show for sure.

- Dealing with human rating arguments?
-- NASA was confident in launching the Pluto mission with plutonium on an Atlas using 5 solids.
-- Should be able to work with NASA and agree on a process satisfactory to both sides.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline infocat13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #87 on: 04/09/2010 06:56 pm »
great post Neilh!
attached is the 44 page PDF from the talk you speak of
I am a member of the side mount amazing people universe however I can get excited over the EELV exploration architecture amazing people universe.Anything else is budgetary hog wash
flexible path/HERRO

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Liked: 528
  • Likes Given: 888
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #88 on: 04/20/2010 04:52 pm »
ULA's Jeff Patton gave a talk yesterday at Space Access 2010 describing ULA's work on the Commercial Crew Development program. Clark Lindsay has posted notes from the talk:

(bolding below is mine)

http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=19821
Quote
Jeff Patton (United Launch Alliance) - ULA's Support for NASA's Commercial Crew Development Programsatisfactory to both sides.

Just read Monday's Space News (hard copy), there's a revealing interview on the last page with Gary Payton (Dep UNSECAF for Space) on DOD's thoughts on Bigelow and ULA:

Quote
If some commercial company or companies want to use the EELV for human access to the space station, we'd have to look very closely at changes to the rocket's design in order to accomodate people. And any of those changes we'd have to manage very closely so that they don't ripple in to the Air Force design, which has been very successful with 31 successes out of 31 attempts. My view is, if it works, don't fix it . . . One way to safely use these rockets is to build "white tail" EELVs that are the same for everybody. After you assemble them, then you add different things. . . What I don't want to see is too separate assembly lines . . . That doesn't help anybody because their RS-68 engine is different from our RS-68 engine, and their RL-10 is different from our RL-10 engine.
[on concern about ending the shuttle SRB line and the military solids lines] . . . We've come to find out that it has a trivial impact . . . because we don't use the big three and a half meter solids, we use the one-and-a-half meter . . ."

Anyway, thought it gives an interesting perspective from the DoD EELV side.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Liked: 528
  • Likes Given: 888
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #89 on: 04/26/2010 10:37 am »
ULA's Jeff Patton gave a talk yesterday at Space Access 2010 describing ULA's work on the Commercial Crew Development program. Clark Lindsay has posted notes from the talk:

(bolding below is mine)

http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=19821
Quote
Jeff Patton (United Launch Alliance) - ULA's Support for NASA's Commercial Crew Development Programsatisfactory to both sides.

Just read Monday's Space News (hard copy), there's a revealing interview on the last page with Gary Payton (Dep UNSECAF for Space) on DOD's thoughts on Bigelow and ULA:

Quote
If some commercial company or companies want to use the EELV for human access to the space station, we'd have to look very closely at changes to the rocket's design in order to accomodate people. And any of those changes we'd have to manage very closely so that they don't ripple in to the Air Force design, which has been very successful with 31 successes out of 31 attempts. My view is, if it works, don't fix it . . . One way to safely use these rockets is to build "white tail" EELVs that are the same for everybody. After you assemble them, then you add different things. . . What I don't want to see is too separate assembly lines . . . That doesn't help anybody because their RS-68 engine is different from our RS-68 engine, and their RL-10 is different from our RL-10 engine.
[on concern about ending the shuttle SRB line and the military solids lines] . . . We've come to find out that it has a trivial impact . . . because we don't use the big three and a half meter solids, we use the one-and-a-half meter . . ."

Anyway, thought it gives an interesting perspective from the DoD EELV side.
Ok, since this is being quoted out of context in non EELV threads, here's the full quote on the SRB / military solid impact:
(Editor asks) Are you concerned about the Constellation decision's impact on the solid-rocket motor industrial base? (The Honorable Mr. Payton answers) We've come to find out that it has a trivial impact on space launch because we don't use the big three-and-a-half meter segmented solids on our EELVs; we use solids that are about one-and-a-half meters in diameter. There is a small ripple effect into space launch, but the dominant industrial base concern according to the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Industrial Policy is on the ballistic missile side for the Navy and Air Force. We duild build 30 to 40 stages for the Trident D5 submarine-launched missile every year, and there are about a dozen motors built each year to sustain the Minuteman 3 industrial base. We already know these sustainment costs will go up, but we don't yet know by how much.
  When we understand the ramifications, we'll have to adjust to it. It may mean buying fewer stages per year. It might mean using these stages for other applications. Right now we pull solid-rocket segments out of storage for use in Minotaur launch vehicles, and that's been a very successful program for years. We may have to change that.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35960
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18340
  • Likes Given: 397
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #90 on: 04/26/2010 11:05 am »
ULA's Jeff Patton gave a talk yesterday at Space Access 2010 describing ULA's work on the Commercial Crew Development program. Clark Lindsay has posted notes from the talk:

(bolding below is mine)

http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=19821
Quote
Jeff Patton (United Launch Alliance) - ULA's Support for NASA's Commercial Crew Development Programsatisfactory to both sides.

Just read Monday's Space News (hard copy), there's a revealing interview on the last page with Gary Payton (Dep UNSECAF for Space) on DOD's thoughts on Bigelow and ULA:

Quote
If some commercial company or companies want to use the EELV for human access to the space station, we'd have to look very closely at changes to the rocket's design in order to accomodate people. And any of those changes we'd have to manage very closely so that they don't ripple in to the Air Force design, which has been very successful with 31 successes out of 31 attempts. My view is, if it works, don't fix it . . . One way to safely use these rockets is to build "white tail" EELVs that are the same for everybody. After you assemble them, then you add different things. . . What I don't want to see is too separate assembly lines . . . That doesn't help anybody because their RS-68 engine is different from our RS-68 engine, and their RL-10 is different from our RL-10 engine.
[on concern about ending the shuttle SRB line and the military solids lines] . . . We've come to find out that it has a trivial impact . . . because we don't use the big three and a half meter solids, we use the one-and-a-half meter . . ."

Anyway, thought it gives an interesting perspective from the DoD EELV side.
Ok, since this is being quoted out of context in non EELV threads, here's the full quote on the SRB / military solid impact:
(Editor asks) Are you concerned about the Constellation decision's impact on the solid-rocket motor industrial base? (The Honorable Mr. Payton answers) We've come to find out that it has a trivial impact on space launch because we don't use the big three-and-a-half meter segmented solids on our EELVs; we use solids that are about one-and-a-half meters in diameter. There is a small ripple effect into space launch, but the dominant industrial base concern according to the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Industrial Policy is on the ballistic missile side for the Navy and Air Force. We duild build 30 to 40 stages for the Trident D5 submarine-launched missile every year, and there are about a dozen motors built each year to sustain the Minuteman 3 industrial base. We already know these sustainment costs will go up, but we don't yet know by how much.
  When we understand the ramifications, we'll have to adjust to it. It may mean buying fewer stages per year. It might mean using these stages for other applications. Right now we pull solid-rocket segments out of storage for use in Minotaur launch vehicles, and that's been a very successful program for years. We may have to change that.



It is not being quoted out of context.  The SRB impact is only a cost issue and not a technology issue.  This is OK, NASA should not be subsiding the DOD solid motor industrial base, if NASA doesn't need SRM's.
« Last Edit: 04/26/2010 11:06 am by Jim »

Offline Arthur

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #91 on: 04/29/2010 06:27 pm »
It is not being quoted out of context.  The SRB impact is only a cost issue and not a technology issue.  This is OK, NASA should not be subsiding the DOD solid motor industrial base, if NASA doesn't need SRM's.

The 2007 figures that I read said that the SRBs accounted for 55% of ATKs solid propellant production market and the loss of that market would increase solid fuel costs by 200% to 300%.

I agree with Jim on this one, that is not a National Security issue or NASA's problem.

Offline Arthur

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #92 on: 04/29/2010 06:34 pm »
On another EELV issue, I have seen the program, development and kg to LEO costs for a SDHLV debated multiple times across multiple threads, but my Search-karma has failed to produce any comparable numbers for ULA's EELVs (or existing Atlas/Delta vehicles).

Does anybody know where some EELV cost data can be found?
Did ULA publish anything?
Did anything get published in the Augustine Commission Documents?
Is there a Topic on this site that talks about it?

The ULA website had lots of data on what needed to be done, but seemed light on what it would cost.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35960
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18340
  • Likes Given: 397
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #93 on: 04/29/2010 06:44 pm »

Does anybody know where some EELV cost data can be found?
Did ULA publish anything?


No where in the open.  It is propriety

Offline Arthur

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #94 on: 04/29/2010 07:36 pm »

Does anybody know where some EELV cost data can be found?
Did ULA publish anything?


No where in the open.  It is propriety

I can understand that, but the 'public support' issue this raises is the debate (over and over) that says "a SDHLV will cost $x billion per year and $y billion over 4 years to produce a J130 to launch the Orion" followed by "that costs too much and a [Delta/Atlas/EELV-IV/V/HVY/Phase2] will cost less". One side has numbers and the other side has opinions.

How can an interested outsider rally behind a 'better-cheaper' plan that offers no indication that it is actually cheaper?

The only hard metric is that a J130 should be able to launch the weight of the loaded orbiter to LEO (since the components already do) and the current and future Atlas/Delta/EELVs will launch less than that (per ULA data).

I offer a hypothesis:
1. the launch pad modifications for an EELV Phase 2 will cost more than the Launch Pad modifications for a J130
2. the development cost for an EELV Phase 2 will cost more than the development cost for a J130
3. the standing army for an EELV Phase 2 will cost more than the standing army for the STS [and a J130].
4. the total program cost for an EELV Phase 2 will be more than the Constellation POR and will bankrupt NASA.

All of these are completely unfounded, but what makes these unsupported opinions less valid than unsupported opinions that Atlas/Delta/EELVs are the best path forward for BEO HSF?

As it stands now, the debate seems to center on 'since the per launch cost of an Atlas V or Delta IV is less than the per launch cost of the STS, therefore any vehicle derrived from an Atlas/Delta will cost less ($/kg to LEO) than any vehicle derrived from the STS' and its cousin 'since the STS carries people and the Atlas/Delta don't, therefore any vehicle derrived from the STS will be safer for manned flight than any vehicle derrived from the Atlas/Delta'. Both Jim and ULA have done a great deal to dispel the man-rating opinion, but very little to support the cost claims.

Are EELVs just another version of the PoR?  Unaffordable.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35960
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18340
  • Likes Given: 397
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #95 on: 04/29/2010 07:44 pm »
Both Jim and ULA have done a great deal to dispel the man-rating opinion, but very little to support the cost claims.

Are EELVs just another version of the PoR?  Unaffordable.

ULA employment levels are enough to support cost claims

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35960
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18340
  • Likes Given: 397
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #96 on: 04/29/2010 07:52 pm »

1. the launch pad modifications for an EELV Phase 2 will cost more than the Launch Pad modifications for a J130
2. the development cost for an EELV Phase 2 will cost more than the development cost for a J130
3. the standing army for an EELV Phase 2 will cost more than the standing army for the STS [and a J130].
4. the total program cost for an EELV Phase 2 will be more than the Constellation POR and will bankrupt NASA.


1.  nope.  only VIF platform mods and new MLP are required.
2.  nope, Atlas V itself was around a 1 billion.  phase II is just bigger diameter vehicle.  No new avionics.
3.  Huh?  The existing manpower would be used.
4.  unfounded.  2 EELV families with 2 pads on two coasts cost less than the 9 billion the POR has spent  to date.

Offline Arthur

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #97 on: 04/29/2010 08:25 pm »

1. the launch pad modifications for an EELV Phase 2 will cost more than the Launch Pad modifications for a J130
2. the development cost for an EELV Phase 2 will cost more than the development cost for a J130
3. the standing army for an EELV Phase 2 will cost more than the standing army for the STS [and a J130].
4. the total program cost for an EELV Phase 2 will be more than the Constellation POR and will bankrupt NASA.


1.  nope.  only VIF platform mods and new MLP are required.
2.  nope, Atlas V itself was around a 1 billion.  phase II is just bigger diameter vehicle.  No new avionics.
3.  Huh?  The existing manpower would be used.
4.  unfounded.  2 EELV families with 2 pads on two coasts cost less than the 9 billion the POR has spent  to date.

Technically, they were all unfounded and probably false. :)
The point was that one proposed path forward for BEO HSF is a rocket throwing 75-100+ ton spacecraft into LEO (cost detailed by Direct and its critics). Another reasonable path forward for BEO HSF is multiple rockets throwing 50 ton chuncks of spacecraft into LEO.

Clearly the FY2011 plan could not be carried out by ULA with (1) no changes to launch facilities, (2) no changes to existing craft,  (3) no new ULA/NASA personnel beyond those already employed for existing ULA cargo launches, and (4) for just the cost of the new spacecraft - ULA will launch it for free.

If ULA thinks that its rockets would be a good candidate for the job, those advocating the '50 ton chunk' approach would be well served by a 'plan' and 'budget' that fills in rough numbers to my unfounded assertions listed above. There is no public data to refute my assertions. The plan needs a rallying point for public support.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 795
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #98 on: 04/29/2010 09:01 pm »
You don't even need 50mT chunks, current launch vehicles are enough. There are two recent articles in Acta Astronautica and Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets detailing possible architectures, using Lagrange points and propellant transfer. It's not just a "New Space idea".
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6430
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1388
  • Likes Given: 1310
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #99 on: 04/29/2010 10:08 pm »
Does anybody know where some EELV cost data can be found

No where in the open.

It is tough to grapple with the costs of human-rating an EELV system.  Do we want to know the fixed cost to human-rate a system to ULA's satisfaction, or to meet NASA's standards, or to win ASAP's approval?  Do we want to guess at the price NASA might pay for the first human-rated launch, or the price for a "buy" of a dozen such launches?

Setting aside the human-rating aspect, current USAF contracts provide some visibility into EELV system costs.  Unfortunately the terms of those contracts have approximately the same clarity as mud.  There's a (somewhat dated) historical summary of 1994 through 2005 at http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/eelv.htm.

Also, the 2007 press releases for the MUOS launch (discussed here http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12523.0)
seem to imply the marginal cost for an Atlas V 551 launch might have been as low as $124.1 million.  But maybe that didn't include the cost of the vehicle itself?

Has NASA paid prices like that for the launches of uncrewed science missions on EELV?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1