Danny Deger sheds light on NASA decisionmaking

[gunsandrockets]

I saw a forum thread over at nasaspaceflight.com that is very interesting...<br /><br />http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=8071&start=1<br /><br />...if what this person claims is true, then selection of the SRB stick over the Atlas V and Delta IV was based on unfair favoritism. Unfair to the point of unethical and possibly even illegal conduct.

 

[docm]

Disturbing, but not unexpected. I worked for a govt. medical institution for >20 years & it was the same story with different technologies, names & places. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Folks here may be aware that I've been 100% supportive of Dr. Griffin.<br /><br />That support is no longer 100% and it is eroding rapidly.<br /><br />Being optimistic is my thing, but I'll jump off the bandwagon if it feels like I'm being delusional.<br /><br />Too many smoking guns.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

there is more:<br />http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/05/petty_politics.html<br /><br />anyone surprised ?

 

[anoolios]

No surprise, NASA's human spaceflight programs post-Apollo have been a massive fraud. The really sad part is that the funding for human spaceflight could be spent in areas (basic scientific research mostly) that would be of a far greater benefit to the future of humanity. The supporters of NASA's human spaceflight have failed to properly account for opportunity cost.

 

[docm]

A new nsf member in the Danny Dot thread, nozzlehead, has posted a <b><i>devastating</i></b> summary of the situation;<br /><br />Link to page 10....<br /><br />Methinks the floodgates are opening <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />It would be laughable if it weren't so sad. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>1. The "Scotty Rocket" is an idea now several years old - it was originally introduced as a concept during the OSP deliberations carrying support of some members of the crew office pushing the "safe, simple, soon" notion for Shuttle replacement. Although not invented by anyone in the astronaut corps, the notion of the Scotty Rocket as a solution was proffered by some astronauts, Ms. Ivins included, because the system was perceived to be "already human rated."<br /><br />2. Three internal, very detailed, NASA studies on EELV options confirmed that Atlas and Delta could support human missions - Atlas was preferred on technical performance grounds. The cost of uprating the Atlas for a human mission was calculated to be modest and operational analyses clearly showed life-cycle costs were about 1/7 of the current Shuttle operational costs.<br /><br />3. There were many options traded prior to CEV that included lifting bodies, winged systems, and capsules - there was furious debate on these options; no clear, verifiable requirements were ever clearly stated. The fact is that neither HQ, JSC, or MSFC could ever agree on what the word "requirement" really meant, so none were ever firmed up. The current CEV "requirements" are contrived and changeable based on the external environment. What trades were conducted concluded that any claims that the Scotty Rocket was by heritage "human rated" were completely unjustified.<br /><br />4. The only requirements that were ever generally agreed upon were an early set of "Level</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

Thanx for the update!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Methinks the floodgates are opening</font>/i><br /><br />It certainly sounds damning. If (1) enough credible people in positions of power (i.e., Congressional staffers) read stuff like this, (2) enough credible evidence is found backing this up to justify a full investigation, and (3) a full investigation largely reaches the same conclusions, then I think heads will roll (probably including Griffin's).<br /><br />Given Griffin's alienation of much of the science side of NASA, his recent political gaffe on global warming (which probably solidified his alienation with much of the science side of NASA), and a new presidency (especially if Democratic) in a year and a half, I would not be surprised to see Griffin go <i><font color="yellow">before</font>/i> the Shuttle retired.<br /><br />What happens to ESAS (and "The Vision" (tm)) in a post-Bush, post-Griffin world?</i></i>

 

[docm]

Congress could mandate ELV's instead of Ares I for starters, especially if the above is true. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vulture2]

>>Congress could mandate ELV's instead of Ares I for starters, especially if the above is true.<br /><br />Some of the astronauts made ratehr arbitrary arguments in favor of the Ares, such as "man-rating should be designed in, not added on." The Redstone, Atlas, and Titan didn't have any fatal accidents.<br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Unfortunately the EELV contractors, particularly Boeing, failed to make any serious effort to persuade NASA that their EELVs were man-ratable or that the LSAS cost estimates were obviously wrong."<br /><br />Who says they didn't?

 

[docm]

Apparently NASA's Griffin and just this last week, but that's bogus as hell because ULA has already stated man-rating the Atlas flight profile is well under way as part of the Bigelow alliance. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

So what does this all mean???<br /><br />A Congressional inquiry?<br /><br />Is it that the NASA culture is far too big that its self absorbed? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

They obviously did persuade them, else NASA management wouldn't have been making threats.

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">Apparently NASA's Griffin and just this last week</font><br /><br />Didn't Griffin in testimony to the House Sciences Committee four years ago also state that manrating was an anacronism from the 50's, and that any vehicle reliable enough to launch a billion dollar space probe was reliable enough to launch humans?<br /><br />edit: found the testimony on archive.org<br />http://web.archive.org/web/20030605091410/http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/space03/may08/griffin.htm <br /><br /><i>"What, precisely, are the precautions that we would take to safeguard a human crew that we would deliberately omit when launching, say, a billion-dollar Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission?� The answer is, of course, �none�.� While we appropriately value human life very highly, the investment we make in most unmanned missions is quite sufficient to capture our full attention."</i><br /><br />Someone's got some 'splaining to do.

 

[holmec]

His testimony goes on with:<br /><br />"Logically, therefore, launch system reliability is treated by all parties as a priority of the highest order, irrespective of the nature of the payload, manned or unmanned.� While there is no EELV flight experience as yet, these modern versions of the Atlas and Delta should be as inherently reliable as their predecessors.� Their specified design reliability is 98%, a value typical of that demonstrated by the best expendable vehicles.� If this is achieved, and I believe that it will be, and given a separate escape system with an assumed reliability of even 90%, the fatal accident rate would be 1 in 500 launches, substantially better than for the Shuttle.� Thus, I believe that launching OSP on an expendable vehicle would pose no greater risk � and quite likely somewhat less risk � for human spaceflight than is already accepted for the Shuttle."<br /><br />His point is launching vehicle safety for the OSP. And its a good point that Delta and Atlas have a proven record of safety and no special modifications are necessary for modern launch vehicles to launch humans. But he also said that there is no record for EELV flights, but assumes that EELV will have a similar record as that of Atlas and Delta.<br /><br />Now we have the CEV Orion capsule and service module.<br /><br />So how did we get from there to here? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

beauracracy....

 

[radarredux]

>> "<i>What, precisely, are the precautions that we would take to safeguard a human crew that we would deliberately omit when launching, say, a billion-dollar Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission? The answer is, of course, none.</i>"<br /><br />I recall Musk saying very similar things about SpaceX's vehicles.

 

[josh_simonson]

"What, precisely, are the precautions that we would take to safeguard a human crew that we would deliberately omit when launching, say, a billion-dollar Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission? The answer is, of course, none. While we appropriately value human life very highly, the investment we make in most unmanned missions is quite sufficient to capture our full attention." <br /><br />That isn't entirely true, if a rocket with a multi-billion dollar rover fails, you don't really care much what happens after that point - but when astronauts are on board the launch system needs to be designed to 'fail safe'. STS does not fail safe, but it appears that all the contenders to be the CLV could have been made to.

 

[no_way]

IMO, Griffin has been doing a lot of double talk. In his climate change interview, he first said that he is aware of the fact that climate is changing, and he believes the rapid changes of last century to be human-induced.<br />When answering the next question, he went on to basically say that ist not up to humans to decide which is the "best weather" so we should not do anything about this change.<br /><br />so, its ok for us to change it, but it aint ok for us to put a stop to it ? how many standards can you come up with .. <br /><br />EDIT: sorry i dont want this thread to head off in another climate change debate spiral, i was just pointing out the fact that Griffins statements and deeds often contradict himself.

 

[jimfromnsf]

""What, precisely, are the precautions that we would take to safeguard a human crew that we would deliberately omit when launching, say, a billion-dollar Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission? The answer is, of course, none. While we appropriately value human life very highly, the investment we make in most unmanned missions is quite sufficient to capture our full attention."<br /><br />That isn't entirely true, if a rocket with a multi-billion dollar rover fails, you don't really care much what happens after that point - but when astronauts are on board the launch system needs to be designed to 'fail safe'. STS does not fail safe, but it appears that all the contenders to be the CLV could have been made to."<br /><br />It is very true. <br /><br />Spacecraft are design to be fail-safe, launch vehicles are not. There is very little redundacy or backup systems in LV's. <br /><br />The only real difference between a CLV and a regular LV is the presence of a health monitoring system which would activiate an abort system. The abort system is part of the spacecraft and not the LV.

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">That isn't entirely true</font><br /><br />It's his testimony, take it up with him.

 

[j05h]

<i>> The only real difference between a CLV and a regular LV is the presence of a health monitoring system which would activiate an abort system. The abort system is part of the spacecraft and not the LV.</i><br /><br />How much does an Atlas or Delta need to be upgraded with reasonable health monitoring? Could capsules be built to be interoperable with several different LVs? SpaceX uses ethernet on Falcon instead of dedicated control lines, this allows a simple interface to their avionics and telemetry for a putative capsule. Bring as much of the decision making into the capsule's electronics, have it/pilot decide when to trigger the LAS and abort, just like in jet fighters. <br /><br />Modularity on this level (while obeying your payload fairing note) with several providers of different capsules and rockets would allow a mix-and-match approach for space development. Dragon may fly on Atlas and Falcon. Bigelow plans to launch on several rockets. Who can provide an in-space propulsion stage for planetary exploration? <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

OSP was going to be compatable with both Atlas and Delta. A common bus with common language and signals was going be used in the health monitoring system. The spacecraft would still make the decision to abort