FlightGlobal: NASA to miss 2014 Orion goal?

[docm]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b>NASA's hopes of manned flights before 2014 are dashed as Orion programme hits first hold-up</b><br /><br />By Rob Coppinger<br /><br />NASA internal planning, official's comments and contractor expectations suggest much touted goal of manned flights of new crew vehicle Orion before 2014 are unrealistic<br /><br />NASA will fail to meet its goal of flying manned Orion missions before 2014, as the first delay emerges for the new spaceship's development timetable just a week after its prime contractor, Lockheed Martin Space Systems, was selected.<br /><br />NASA administrator Michael Griffin had wanted Orion's development accelerated because the four-year gap between the Space Shuttle's 2010 retirement and the new spacecraft's planned 2014 operational debut was deemed unacceptable. The prime contractor selection process was even adjusted for changes introduced by NASA to accelerate Orion.<br /><br />However NASA internal planning documents obtained by Flight International, and recent comments by Constellation and Lockheed Martin programme officials, reveal that this goal is unrealistic.<br /><br />In an interview with Flight International last week, Lockheed Project Orion business development manager Patrick McKenzie said that the "requirements review (SRR) should slip into the first quarter of next year". NASA's plan had been for Orion's SRR to occur in the fourth quarter of 2006.<br /><br />While McKenzie was sure his company could deliver the Orion for a 2012 manned flight, at the 31 August contractor selection announcement Project Orion office manager Caris Hatfeld said "a full and final" Ares I test was unlikely before 2012 in order to complete the launcher's upper stage and its Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne J-2X engine. That 2012 test flight will not be manned.<br /><br />The leaked documents and corroborating NASA sources describe a timetable where the Ares I-1 test would occur in 2009, followed by the 2012 flight, w</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Give me a minute or so to put a look of shock on my face. Maybe two minutes...as its getting tougher to maintain genuine shock at this sort of news. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[flynn]

Delays have become the norm but lets get things right at this stage. Getting things wrong now could mean far worse delays later or a vehicle that isn't fit for purpose. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#800080">"All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring" - <strong>Chuck Palahniuk</strong>.</font> </div>

 

[qso1]

I agree with that, but NASA has enough experience to know to account for potential delays and should factor that in when estimating timelines. Of course, I know that NASA has a lot on their plate so delays are expected by those of us used to it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[mattblack]

Mercury, Gemini, Soyuz and Apollo were all late, to varying degrees. And Shuttle and ISS certainly were.<br /><br />No one should be suprised by this. Dissapointed maybe, but not surprised. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

As sure as the sun rises each morning on my South Pacific paradise, Orion won't make 2014 and Shuttle won't be retired in 2010. (in my very humble and respectful opinion)<br /><br />Afterall, that's what NASA Administrator changes are for ... to make the about-face policy decisions easier to sell. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">While McKenzie was sure his company could deliver the Orion for a 2012 manned flight ... "a full and final" Ares I test was unlikely before 2012</font>/i><br /><br />ATK is really starting to get on my bad side. The completely new CEV will be ready for manned flights early, but the slightly modified SRB will be delayed and a whole lot more expensive than planned. I think the argument for going with ATK for the Ares I is now bogus.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">NASA internal planning, official's comments and contractor expectations suggest much touted goal of manned flights of new crew vehicle Orion before 2014 are unrealistic</font>/i><br /><br />Alert: This may not matter !!!<br /><br />The significance of the date is to address America's loss of an independent means to access the ISS (e.g., not relying on Russia). The original implication was that NASA's CEV would be America's only means for humans to access LEO since NASA has been America's only provider of human space access since the dawn of the space age.<br /><br />Today's announcement that Orion's prime contractor, Lockheed-Martin, is also pursuing an independent means to reach the ISS through its Atlas V design may mean that the US will have manned access to LEO and ISS before Orion flies on Ares I.<br /><br />(NOTE: In addition to Lockheed-Martin's efforts, SpaceX and Kistler are also in the running, but my gut feeling now is that this is a race for LM to win or lose.)<br /><br />If the delay in the Orion & Ares I first flight doesn't affect the development of the Ares V and related development effort, then the 2014 slip date may have little effect on the overall Lunar schedule.</i>

 

[josh_simonson]

No, it's a race for SpaceX to win or lose, with Lockheed as backup for the consolation prize. <br /><br />Perhaps without a government cost+ contract they'll be more efficient, but I have a buddy there that's been fully salaried for a year twiddling his thumbs waiting for the project he's on to get to the stage where he is needed.<br /><br />Somehow I doubt that SpaceX will keep engineers idle in a holding pattern like that.<br /><br /><br />The 2014 goal was set by the president and his advisors, not by NASA. It may be somewhat ambitious.<br /><br />What's with the gratuitous ATK bashing too? The article said the holdups were with the J-2X and the upperstage, not the SRB. There's plenty of room to criticize them without blaming them for the shortcomings of others. I bet some people here blame ATK when they get a parking ticket... <br /><br />This version of the CLV was always known to be considerably (30%) more expensive than the 4s/SSME to develop, but it was the SSME that had horrendous price and schedule over-runs that forced the move to this version, and the SSME was taken behind the shed for that failure. It seems to me that P&WRocketdyne has screwed up more than ATK - throw some tomatoes their way too!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">What's with the gratuitous ATK bashing too?</font>/i><br /><br />Sorry, I was pulling in information from previous threads regarding the expected delays and added costs of going from the 4 to 5 segment SRBs.<br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">I bet some people here blame ATK when they get a parking ticket...</font>/i><br /><br />I admit I also have a bias against ATK after they hired Ron Dittemore as Senior VP of their Launch Systems Group. I (perhaps unjustly) hold him partly responsible for the Columbia tragedy, and then for him to hold an executive position (probably at much higher salary) to build the next human launch vehicle really chaps my hide.<br /><br />So yes, I am biased.</i></i>

 

[trailrider]

"You don't get medals for on-time failures!" - Walt Williams, NACA/NASA Pioneer<br /><br />There is NO QUESTION that it is HIGHLY DESIREABLE to minimize the gap between the retirement of the STS fleet and the IOC (Initial Operational Capability) of the Ares I/Orion fleet. As such, it may be difficult POLITICALLY to sustain such government-sponsored programs through several changes in Administration and Congress. But it will be FAR, FAR BETTER to have some slippage in the schedule than to go down the primrose path that we went with Shuttle! The saving grace with Constellation is that, unlike the STS program, Constellation (at least through the LEO phases) does NOT appear to be revolutionary technology-wise, but evolutionary ("Apollo on steroids").<br /><br />As such...LET'S DO IT RIGHT!<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!