-
#300 by rcoppola on 03 May, 2014 18:21
-
This is such an important point with regards to NASA's Commercial Crew program that always gets lost in the soup.
2) The ULA can pump out more cores, that's a non issue. The issue then comes down to the engines. Again this isn't a DOD problem its a NASA problem. So the fix is easy pull all Atlas V NASA missions and use those engines for Crew testing until they sort the engine mess out.
Not NASA's call. NASA doesn't own any engines nor does NASA contract ULA for crew flights.
SNC and Boeing are the ones' offering this service. They will be contracted by NASA. They alone decide which launcher to include in their proposals and at what cost. They, not NASA, would sub-contract ULA as part of their integrated proposals. Which is why Boeing has spoken publicly about using the F9 if the business case made sense. Depending on how things evolve, that case may start to make more rather then less sense. But nobody knows yet. All speculative. I'm sure it will come up during any number of NASA meetings over the next few weeks. -
#301 by baldusi on 03 May, 2014 19:18
-
The law says SLS with Orion as backup. Ridiculous and not human rated until the next upper stage, so you can't do it before 2020, with unlimited funds.
If DoD had invested on a bigger cache of RD-180, or us production this would not an issue. If they had worked on human rating the Delta IV before, it wouldn't either. But even the ICPS has dropped the human rating requirement. So as of right now it simply isn't an option.
Well SLS could, and should have been in launch test mode this year....lets not go there.
Orion has been under development one way or another for how many years? Frankly, the 2010 Obama plan confirmed Orion as a backup and should be ready....but this is all the Administration and politics, so lets not go there.QuoteIf you wanted to go with Delta IV Heavy, you'd still have to human rate it.
That's not right. Falcon 9 is closer to human rate. And there's the option of producing the engines in the US.
If you look at our status I don't see any other choice.QuoteThose schedules and cost would make it easier to actually produce the RD-180 in the US. Again, no funding limits.
It needs the funding. 200M have been appropriated this year. But it's a long road and we don't know what will happen with the project if the Ukrainian crisis gets solved next year.
That's a given....its time for Rocketdyne to pull all the materials out of storage and get the manufacturing project started.QuoteIf funding is an issue, I don't believe there's any human rated alternative to Atlas V save for Falcon 9, and Dragon has the integration advantage there.
Dragon on Falcon 9 is about to go through integrated CDR in a couple of month. They are actually testing the MaxQ LAS abort this year or early next. And they have agreed their certification process with NASA. Do you believe that you can be the fore runner in crewed launch competition with a rocket that's nowhere close to human rating? If Atlas V was the closest to human rating, then Falcon 9 is clearly next.
Where is this coming from? The Falcon 9 is under continuous experimental status with re usability. Unless I missed something, don't see this combo operational as HSR for years. Throwing more cash is not going to fix this problem.QuoteRegarding NASA rockets, yes, the problem is propulsion. Not only human rated but nuclear rated. ULA could deploy a Delta IV (4,4) in 36 months and a (5,6) or (5,8) in 48 months. That could cover Atlas V 431, 541 and 551, resp. But again, look at lead times. And is not only certifying for launch, but human rating and nuclear rating. Of course ULA can pump the cores, and the cost would go down for Delta (though higher than Atlas V). But the engines stock in simply not enough to deploy the alternatives without some painful decisions.
The RS-68A project actually took care of most of the human rating issues. Going to a full new development like the RS-68B would not only be seriously expensive, but add three to five years to the human rating effort. As the Delta IV current status, is mostly implementing Common Avionics, pad mods and design and implement the certification process. The issue is mostly the avionics implementation schedule.
We are at the pre to painful decisions point. Start thinking of it as a management lead Apollo 13 issue. So a decision is needed, the Sooner the better.
Believe the real call NASA needs to make is going from the RS-68 A to make the RS-68B. The electronics upgrade is done? The regenerative nozzle would finish the project?
The issue with the rest of the crew rating is simply money and time. Had CST-100 or DreamChaser chosen the DIV, they would have done all the requirement and planning that would have allowed them to launch crew in a couple of years. But they haven't and no amount of money can accelerate certain thing. In any case nowhere close to Falcon 9 readiness.QuoteBut, to be frank, I don't expect this situation to keep going for more than two days.
I'm sorry, I meant two years. I'm referring to the Ukrainian situation.
What can be solved in two days? -
#302 by Prober on 03 May, 2014 22:41
-
My guess is that the DoD wished to get the complete order. Have a feeling the State Dept long ago thought it a better idea to keep purchases low and cash flowing into Russia.....believe it was the policy. The US didn't want the engineers to end up working for the bad guys.The law says SLS with Orion as backup. Ridiculous and not human rated until the next upper stage, so you can't do it before 2020, with unlimited funds.
If DoD had invested on a bigger cache of RD-180, or us production this would not an issue. If they had worked on human rating the Delta IV before, it wouldn't either. But even the ICPS has dropped the human rating requirement. So as of right now it simply isn't an option.
Well SLS could, and should have been in launch test mode this year....lets not go there.
Orion has been under development one way or another for how many years? Frankly, the 2010 Obama plan confirmed Orion as a backup and should be ready....but this is all the Administration and politics, so lets not go there.
After the Georgia mess; that policy should have changed with the new Administration.
-
#303 by baldusi on 03 May, 2014 23:32
-
That might be your opinion. But on L2 and even on the public side every informed opinion is that SpaceX is ahead of the rest in CCtCap. You'll understand if you go by the opinion of the actual NASA engineers.
-
#304 by Prober on 04 May, 2014 15:04
-
That might be your opinion. But on L2 and even on the public side every informed opinion is that SpaceX is ahead of the rest in CCtCap. You'll understand if you go by the opinion of the actual NASA engineers.
These the same NASA engineers making the call on SLS or Orion, or how about Aries 1?
If so its not a great track record
-
#305 by Jim on 04 May, 2014 16:16
-
These the same NASA engineers making the call on SLS or Orion, or how about Aries 1?
Not the same -
#306 by Lar on 04 May, 2014 22:56
-
What will Putin gobble next? Off topic.
General world situation? Off topic.
Some posts trimmed. -
#307 by Coastal Ron on 07 May, 2014 20:10
-
Interesting article about the CST-100 on Gizmodo, including additional interior pictures that I hadn't seen before:
Inside the Boeing Capsule That May Someday Take You to Space -
#308 by Lars_J on 07 May, 2014 20:27
-
Interesting article about the CST-100 on Gizmodo, including additional interior pictures that I hadn't seen before:
Inside the Boeing Capsule That May Someday Take You to Space
Yep, and those pictures do seem to suggest that this is an interior of some fantasy spacecraft (look at all the windows!), and *NOT* CST-100. Some future derivative perhaps, but not CST-100.
There is no way that interior matches the exterior.
-
#309 by arachnitect on 07 May, 2014 20:58
-
Interesting article about the CST-100 on Gizmodo, including additional interior pictures that I hadn't seen before:
Inside the Boeing Capsule That May Someday Take You to Space
Yep, and those pictures do seem to suggest that this is an interior of some fantasy spacecraft (look at all the windows!), and *NOT* CST-100. Some future derivative perhaps, but not CST-100.
There is no way that interior matches the exterior.
We've always known this is not the CCtCap product, Boeing has been very clear about that.
Some of the windows are simulated (digital displays), but they are studying options with real glass says Ferguson.
http://www.space.com/25734-boeing-commercial-spaceliner-cabin-design-unveiled.html -
#310 by yg1968 on 10 May, 2014 12:36
-
#311 by Rocket Science on 17 May, 2014 14:43
-
I started a thread on Human Rating Delta IV if you're interested.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34753.0 -
#312 by arachnitect on 17 May, 2014 20:26
-
Ken Kremer's interview with Ferguson continues:
http://www.universetoday.com/111935/assembling-and-launching-boeings-cst-100-private-space-taxi-one-on-one-interview-with-chris-ferguson-last-shuttle-commander-part-2/ -
#313 by newpylong on 19 May, 2014 17:35
-
"Boeing takes over the OPF-3 lease in late June 2014 following an official handover ceremony from Space Florida. Assembly begins soon thereafter.
When will CST-100 spacecraft manufacturing begin?
“The pieces are coming one by one from all over the country,” Ferguson explained. “Parts from our vendors are already starting to show up for our test article.
“Assembly of the test article in Florida starts soon.”
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/111935/assembling-and-launching-boeings-cst-100-private-space-taxi-one-on-one-interview-with-chris-ferguson-last-shuttle-commander-part-2/#ixzz32BSzNqQs" -
#314 by rcoppola on 19 May, 2014 18:09
-
I see 2 dates throughout 2017 for orbital tests but I have not seen any dates mentioned for a Pad abort and/or In-flight abort? Which I'm assuming would need to be towards the end of 2016? Will there be an additional Atlas V available for an in-flight abort test in 2016?
-
#315 by Star One on 19 May, 2014 20:28
-
I see 2 dates throughout 2017 for orbital tests but I have not seen any dates mentioned for a Pad abort and/or In-flight abort? Which I'm assuming would need to be towards the end of 2016? Will there be an additional Atlas V available for an in-flight abort test in 2016?
The way things are going you have to wonder if there will be an Atlas spare by then.
Maybe they'll have to seriously start considering an alternative launcher. -
#316 by oiorionsbelt on 19 May, 2014 23:52
-
" A familiar daytime blue sky scene helps passengers maintain their connection with Earth."
Seems everyone agrees with this. Which ever spacecraft flies on on which ever launcher, it will most likely have a blue interior.
-
#317 by newpylong on 20 May, 2014 13:00
-
Doesn't need to be an Atlas for an abort test. In fact that would be a waste of an expensive booster.
-
#318 by JasonAW3 on 20 May, 2014 13:03
-
" A familiar daytime blue sky scene helps passengers maintain their connection with Earth."
Seems everyone agrees with this. Which ever spacecraft flies on on which ever launcher, it will most likely have a blue interior.
Anyway we go, someone will be sining the "Spaceman Blues"... -
#319 by Zed_Noir on 20 May, 2014 13:18
-
Doesn't need to be an Atlas for an abort test. In fact that would be a waste of an expensive booster.
Maybe not for the pad abort, but for the in-flight abort test you would need a flight configuration Atlas V LV.
