Author Topic: Man rating EELVs  (Read 51674 times)

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7450
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 167
Man rating EELVs
« on: 08/11/2009 07:45 PM »
A new thread for discussing everything related to man rating EELVs: cost, logistics, opposition by NASA, opposition by DoD etc.
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline agman25

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #1 on: 08/11/2009 08:07 PM »
Did these problems with the DoD insisting on separate production lines and pads for any modified EELV come up during OSP or the spiral development days or are they a post-ESAS thing?

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7126
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 646
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #2 on: 08/12/2009 09:29 AM »
@ agman25

I'm no expert at the history.  However, you have to look at the different backgrounds of the two times. 

OSP was one of the two designed major customers of the EELVs alongside DoD payloads.  If the program had proceeded then, the EELVs would have been built as human-rated according to NASA's requirements and the pads would have been built to double as crewed launch sites.  The DoD would have used the same machine and pads for their own launches and that would have been that. 

Now, we are in a situation where NASA is the 'johnny-come-lately' and the USAF is (perhaps, justifiably) worried that two perfectly good launchers may end up being ruined by NASA's bureaucratic fumbling or that human-rating work at LC-37 and LC-41 may delay their own launch schedules.  Instead of being one of the two original major customers, NASA HSF is in the position of being a new customer who wants massive changes to the product that the original major customer isn't happy about.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7450
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #3 on: 08/12/2009 12:13 PM »
The Aerospace study into man-rating Delta-IV-H has been released.
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3068
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #4 on: 08/13/2009 12:35 PM »
The Aerospace study into man-rating Delta-IV-H has been released.

Thanks! This is interesting.

Man, so much to read, so little time and energy.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7450
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #5 on: 11/03/2009 04:31 PM »
It has been said that man-rating EELVs was considered extremely difficult in the OSP days, including but not limited to problems caused by steep ascent profiles. What has changed since then that would make things easier? Is it the fact RS68A will likely be operational soon?
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11063
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #6 on: 11/03/2009 04:41 PM »

OSP was one of the two designed major customers of the EELVs alongside DoD payloads.  If the program had proceeded then, the EELVs would have been built as human-rated according to NASA's requirements and the pads would have been built to double as crewed launch sites.  The DoD would have used the same machine and pads for their own launches and that would have been that. 

Incorrect.  OSP requirements were not used in the EELV development and had no influence on EELV design, neither launch vehicle nor pads.     OSP didn't even exist when the first EELV's were built.

Hence OSP and any other manned spacecraft have the same starting point, they needed to modify stock EELV's and pads

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11063
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #7 on: 11/03/2009 04:43 PM »
It has been said that man-rating EELVs was considered extremely difficult in the OSP days, including but not limited to problems caused by steep ascent profiles. What has changed since then that would make things easier?

NASA relaxed the manrating requirements

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7450
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #8 on: 11/03/2009 04:46 PM »
Would it be possible to meet the old requirements with RS68A? And is the 1.4 factor of safety still in the new requirements?
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5201
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #9 on: 11/04/2009 05:28 AM »
NASA Standard 8705.2B no longer has strict technical requirements in it, whereas 8705.2A did.  Rev B states that the requirements are levied at the Program level rather than at the Agency level.  So whatever Program would use the hardware would decide what factor of safety to use.

My offer still stands: I'll buy a 6-month L2 subscription for anyone who can definitively prove where 1.4 came from - proof subject to the scrutiny of NSF members.

LV trajectories can be tailored such that major structure can meet the 1.4 requirement.  However, since engines drive their own environments and their operation is pretty set, I doubt an engine could meet a higher safety factor than its original design.  Similarly, if EELV used 1.25 and RS-68 was specifically for EELV, I doubt it would have a higher SF.

Keep in mind, though, that there are other considerations in the design and manufacture of anything such that a relatively small number of locations on any system are at the minimum allowable factor of safety.

Also, as Danny Deger has stated, within 24 hours of learning of the requirement (one of those requirements NASA HSF accidentally forgot to mention initially) Boeing and Lockheed altered the trajectory to eliminate the high-g abort environment.
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 Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7087
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #10 on: 11/05/2009 01:36 PM »
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.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7526
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1746
  • Likes Given: 383
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #11 on: 11/05/2009 01:43 PM »
Well, my concern with man-rating Delta or Atlas is simple, what is the history of either system with people?

A moot point - what was the history of the Shuttle before Young and Crippen climbed aboard? Lack of such "people" history does not by itself make a vehicle unsuitable, nor does having any such previous history necessarily make it suitable (as Ares I 5-segment SRB proponents would have you believe).

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #12 on: 11/05/2009 01:52 PM »
Here's something I've wondered about: How much of the existing Atlas V is Atlas ICBM heritage? For that matter, does the existing Delta IV have any Thor IRBM heritage, or are these things just names?

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #13 on: 11/05/2009 01:53 PM »
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.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7087
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #14 on: 11/05/2009 02:03 PM »
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.
Too true, but it was designed to, plus the engine family is being used on the Angara which is being planned for human-lift as well.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5479
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 579
  • Likes Given: 677
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #15 on: 11/05/2009 02:48 PM »
Human-triggered Abort

There seems to be an assumption that for a launch vehicle to be "human rated" it must have an automated system that would detect trouble and trigger the abort/escape system.

Why?

For sake of discussion, assume there is no solid propellant; just liquid.  Why isn't it enough to give the pilot an abort button, give the ground controller an abort button, and give range safety an abort button? 
-- sdsds --

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7087
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #16 on: 11/05/2009 02:49 PM »
Human-triggered Abort

There seems to be an assumption that for a launch vehicle to be "human rated" it must have an automated system that would detect trouble and trigger the abort/escape system.

Why?

For sake of discussion, assume there is no solid propellant; just liquid.  Why isn't it enough to give the pilot an abort button, give the ground controller an abort button, and give range safety an abort button? 

Letś use Challenger as an example, how fast can you hit that button when breakup takes under a half second?
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5479
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 579
  • Likes Given: 677
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #17 on: 11/05/2009 03:00 PM »
Human-triggered Abort

There seems to be an assumption that for a launch vehicle to be "human rated" it must have an automated system that would detect trouble and trigger the abort/escape system.

Why?

For sake of discussion, assume there is no solid propellant; just liquid.  Why isn't it enough to give the pilot an abort button, give the ground controller an abort button, and give range safety an abort button? 

Letś use Challenger as an example, how fast can you hit that button when breakup takes under a half second?

The Challenger stack included solids, but let's look at it anyway.  With a launch abort system triggered from the ground and a reasonably robust escape system pulling a reasonably robust capsule away from the stack, would the crew have been alive upon hitting the water?

Evidence indicates that with Challenger, the crew cabin detached and was robust enough that some crew members were alive until impact.

So there's no need for the crew to "hit the button" in under a half second.  That's what the ground controller's button is for!
-- sdsds --

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11063
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #18 on: 11/05/2009 03:02 PM »
Here's something I've wondered about: How much of the existing Atlas V is Atlas ICBM heritage? For that matter, does the existing Delta IV have any Thor IRBM heritage, or are these things just names?

Names only.  Delta IV has Delta II avionics and Altas V has some Atlas II & III parts. 

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11063
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #19 on: 11/05/2009 03:03 PM »
Human-triggered Abort

There seems to be an assumption that for a launch vehicle to be "human rated" it must have an automated system that would detect trouble and trigger the abort/escape system.

Why?

For sake of discussion, assume there is no solid propellant; just liquid.  Why isn't it enough to give the pilot an abort button, give the ground controller an abort button, and give range safety an abort button? 

Because things can happen faster than human reaction.   See the Titan IV A-20 breakup.

Tags: