SAVE CONSTELLATION

[jakethesnake]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

You mean the part where your employer will not be able to blackmail you with the health insurance any more ? No.
Let's not talk politics.

I didn't say that our health care system doesn’t need reforming, but I just don't want a heath care system that resembles the Canadian heath care system! OK and I agree... getting way off topic here and I don’t think there is even a thread for this topic here….. Sooooo???

 

[menellom]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

To human rate these launchers would require a monumental undertaking to say the least!

I'll give you that man-rating the Atlas or Delta would be a pain, but Falcon 9 already meets all of NASA's published human-rating requirements (minus the escape system which is in development).

The Falcon 9 meets all of the NASA published human rated requirement... Not even remotely close... you're kidding RIGHT?

Go ahead and check for yourself. NASA's technical requirements for man-rating are available at the link below (warning: it's a bit wordy)
http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8705_002B_&page_name=Chapter3

 

[jakethesnake]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

You are right… it is very wordy… and actually I was going to send you there myself… kind of impressed to be honest, but I still think it’s way beyond anything SpaceX or anyone else can HANDLE at this point. I kind of think you are proving my point for me.

 

[mr_mark]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

Once again I have to defend Spacex against either outright lies or misconceptions. The Falcon 9 launcher is manrated. That was approved by NASA themselves and that is a NASA quote not from Spacex. Falcon 9 has met all of NASA's required safety standards for manrated spaceflight. It is the Dragon Capsule that has not been rated for human spaceflight. So please check the facts as stated by NASA. You can find these facts on Spacex's own website and the facts have also be quoted on Spacenews.com, nasaspaceflight.com, spacex.com and nasa.com just to name several.

 

[EarthlingX]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

You are right… it is very wordy… and actually I was going to send you there myself… kind of impressed to be honest, but I still way think it’s way beyond anything SpaceX or anyone else can HANDLE at this point. I kind of think you are proving my point for me.

Ok, then just read this:

3.1.2 As stated previously in this NPR, these requirements are not intended to be all inclusive or an absolute prescription for human-rating. Compliance with these requirements does not assure a safe system for human missions into space. These technical requirements are intended to provide the foundation of capabilities upon which the Program Manager will build by identifying and incorporating additional unique capabilities for each reference mission (see paragraph 2.3.2). Furthermore, some of these requirements were intentionally written to force the design team to bound the problem. The design team should evaluate the intent of these technical requirements and use their talents to deliver the safest practical system that will accomplish the mission within the constraints. Technical requirements, along with history's lessons, legacy solutions, expert opinions, and best practices, are only as good as the implementer's understanding of their origins and assumptions.

What do you think ?

 

[mr_mark]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

It’s the single largest development item,” Musk tells Aviation Week. “We’ve designed Falcon 9 and our Dragon spacecraft to meet all of the published NASA human-rating standards—in fact to meet the older, more difficult human-rating standards, not the newer, easier human-rating standards—but one system that isn’t there is the launch escape system. This is obviously a very important part. It’s the one that drives the development timeframe.”

From an article in aviation weekly. Just one of many for numerous sources.

 

[menellom]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

The only thing SpaceX needs to get Dragon man-rated is a proper abort/escape system for the capsule.

 

[nimbus]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

30 engines - Soyuz; what NASA plans (or planned) to use for the gap.

The Soyuz rocket, which has the longest flight history of any launch vehicle ever and a phenomenal safety record over the past few decades, is the primary form of human transportation to the Space Station. It has thirty-two thrust chambers on the first stage. The Saturn I, which had zero failures, was used for human transportation during the Apollo program. It had eight thrust chambers.

Also IIRC SpaceX is looking at using a larger american engine (I think RS 68) on the F9.

Redundancy - google "redundancy site:spacex.com". Look thru white papers etc and see for yourself. Name some specific things not satisfying NASA man rating standards. Truisms just won't do. They're empty rhetoric.

We have been floundering ever since the X33!

It’s time to stay the course!

Stay an unsustainable course? Not gonna happen...

 

[mr_mark]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

This just in from Buzz Aldrin, second man to walk on the moon. Quote: "If Congress agrees, we'll turn over all space taxi services to the private sector and aim NASA at fully using the station - extended to at least 2020 in Obama's plan - and spending a billion dollars a year in creating these new private sector spaceships. When the time comes to start building deep space transports and refueling rocket tankers, it will be the commercial industry that steps up, not another government-owned, government-managed enterprise. And if we want to use the moon as a steppingstone in the future, we'll have to join with our international partners for the effort. No more 'go it alone' space projects. If you or your children or grandkids ever hope to fly into orbit, these new vehicles are their only hope for a ride to space."

 

[menellom]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

Also IIRC SpaceX is looking at using a larger american engine (I think RS 68) on the F9.

The Falcon 9 uses an engine of SpaceX's own design - the Merlin 1C

 

[nimbus]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

No, I mean they have the (IIRC) RS-68 under license and someone who follows SpaceX closely (might've been Docm; unless I read it on another forum) intimated that they might have done it to replace their 9xMerlin Falcon 9 cfg with a lesser number of RS-68s.

 

[EarthlingX]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

No, I mean they have the (IIRC) RS-68 under license and someone who follows SpaceX closely (might've been Docm; unless I read it on another forum) intimated that they might have done it to replace their 9xMerlin Falcon 9 cfg with a lesser number of RS-68s.

That would be RS-84
RS-84 pdf http://www.pwrengineering.com/dataresou ... erview.pdf
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rs84.htm

The SpaceX RS-84 looks to be real. Very real.

Another poster on NSF has confirmed what clongton posted the other day: that SpaceX licensed the RS-84 early last year and has been running a black program working towards a heavy launcher using it - initially sounds to be a Falcon 9 Heavy using just 3 engines and not 27. This to meet military requirements - they're uncomfortable with lots of engines vs. just a few. Having such a beast in the stable would also give them a leg up on developing an entry for a much larger HLV competition.

NSF post;
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... #msg486219

An old link about RS-84
X-43C, RS-84 Engine Among Casualties Of NASA Review

 

[nimbus]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

That's the one, thank you.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

Well I don’t like them for human space flight. Here are the reasons why I don’t like them.

1. Once lit you cannot extinguish them. This has draw backs if your cargo is human beings. I don’t know if you have ever lit Roman candle fireworks, but when I light one up, I run for my life

It's really a rather moot point. Once you release a liquid fueled rocket from it's ground clamps (which for STS, occurs when the solids light) if it's a nanometer above the ground and you shut down the liquid fueled (or more technically, propelled ) engines, very bad things will happen real fast.

 

[EarthlingX]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

Well I don’t like them for human space flight. Here are the reasons why I don’t like them.

1. Once lit you cannot extinguish them. This has draw backs if your cargo is human beings. I don’t know if you have ever lit Roman candle fireworks, but when I light one up, I run for my life

It's really a rather moot point. Once you release a liquid fueled rocket from it's ground clamps (which for STS, occurs when the solids light) if it's a nanometer above the ground and you shut down the liquid fueled (or more technically, propelled ) engines, very bad things will happen real fast.

No argument there, but you still have better chances cutting the fuel than stopping the solid rocket engines.
Besides, liquids are throttleable, not pre-designed for thrust envelope, no more control but thrust vectoring after ignition.

 

[its_amazing]

"... a principal concern identified at the first ASAP meeting in 2009 was that the current HRR
procedures, when applied to the development of future human-related vehicles, were not
specifically intended to establish requirements for vehicles produced by entities external
to NASA, such as commercial space transportation firms or international programs."

"The report also stated that 'It is the Panel’s position that no COTS manufacturer is
currently HRR qualified, despite some claims and beliefs to the contrary.'"

This was from the science committee meeting with the house Feb 3, 2010.
http://democrats.science.house.gov/Medi ... harter.pdf

 

[EarthlingX]

"... a principal concern identified at the first ASAP meeting in 2009 was that the current HRR
procedures, when applied to the development of future human-related vehicles, were not
specifically intended to establish requirements for vehicles produced by entities external
to NASA, such as commercial space transportation firms or international programs."

"The report also stated that 'It is the Panel’s position that no COTS manufacturer is
currently HRR qualified, despite some claims and beliefs to the contrary.'"

This was from the science committee meeting with the house Feb 3, 2010.
http://democrats.science.house.gov/Medi ... harter.pdf

Sure, because no NASA PROGRAM MANAGER defined their program, or something like that. It's a bit above this post.

 

[jakethesnake]

It's a bit above this post.

Sounds just a little condescending… but I guess that’s just me.

I have been heavily involved in quality control, as well as Mechanical engineering, and Metallurgy for over 20 years.

I have also done my fair share of Finite element analysis (FEA’s) both thermal and mechanical, and I am fully versed in Metrology (GD&T) as well as mechanical testing, Fatigue tests, ultimate axial and torque as well as wear testing all in accordance to the suppliers engineering specifications (ES).

I have worked for those people that got us to the Moon… yep people that have worked for NASA!

I have also been heavily involved in safety for over 20 years and yes the kind of safety that can KILL people…

Soooo I can tell you sincerely and most definitely it is NOT “a bit above this post.”

I can back all of this up too!

Wana test me?

I have been trying my best to get along with you but to be totally honest this POST is a bit over your head!

I have spent the entire day going over the Falcon 9 and NASA's testing standards… and ya know what?

At this point the Falcon 9 doesn’t cut the mustard… not even close!

No history... never been launched... no repeatability… no reproducibility … and a total statistical nothing!

SRB's have been launched for 30 years with only one misshap.... and keep in mind there were icicles hanging everywhere with subfreezing temperatures the night before when that occurred.

Here is what I have been going over all day (care to go over it yourself?)

NASA Technical Standards

http://standards.nasa.gov/documents/nasa

One thing stood out… Although SpaceX says they meet these standards they don’t prove it ANYWHERE!

But NASA puts their Standard right out on the web for everyone to see!

i.e. I say I can but I don’t prove it ANYWHERE!

And more specifically

NASA-STD-5017

Baseline DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR MECHANISMS

So you don't get to lost (Page 24 of 30)

4.13.3 Design Life Test Factor

a. Human-rated mechanisms shall be life tested to at least four times the number of
planned operational cycles plus four times the total number of ground cycles (including
assembly, installation, and maintenance) plus four times the total number of functional,
environmental, and run-in cycles. (See notes on Design Life Verification, section 5.7.)

b. Non-human-rated mechanisms shall be life tested to at least two times the number of
planned operational cycles plus four times the total number of ground cycles (including
assembly, installation, and maintenance) plus four times the total number of functional,
environmental, and run-in cycles. (See notes on Design Life Verification, section 5.7.)

 

[EarthlingX]

It's a bit above this post.

Sounds just a little condescending… but I guess that’s just me.

I have been heavily involved in quality control, as well as Mechanical engineering, and Metallurgy for over 20 years.

I have also done my fair share of Finite element analysis (FEA’s) both thermal and mechanical, and I am fully versed in Metrology (GD&T) as well as mechanical testing, Fatigue tests, ultimate axial and torque as well as wear testing all in accordance to the suppliers engineering specifications (ES).

I have worked for those people that got us to the Moon… yep people that have worked for NASA!

I have also been heavily involved in safety for over 20 years and yes the kind of safety that can KILL people…

Soooo I can tell you sincerely and most definitely it is NOT “a bit above this post.”

I can back all of this up too!

Wana test me?

I have been trying my best to get along with you but to be totally honest this POST is a bit over your head!

I have spent the entire day going over the Falcon 9 and NASA's testing standards… and ya know what?

At this point the Falcon 9 doesn’t cut the mustard… not even close!

No history... never been launched... no repeatability… no reproducibility … and a total statistical nothing!

SRB's have been launched for 30 years with only one misshap.... and keep in mind there were icicles hanging everywhere with subfreezing temperatures the night before when that occurred.

Here is what I have been going over all day (care to go over it yourself?)

NASA Technical Standards

http://standards.nasa.gov/documents/nasa

One thing stood out… Although SpaceX says they meet these standards they don’t prove it ANYWHERE!

But NASA puts their Standard right out on the web for everyone to see!

i.e. I say I can but I don’t prove it ANYWHERE!

And more specifically

NASA-STD-5017

Baseline DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR MECHANISMS

So you don't get to lost (Page 24 of 30)

4.13.3 Design Life Test Factor

a. Human-rated mechanisms shall be life tested to at least four times the number of
planned operational cycles plus four times the total number of ground cycles (including
assembly, installation, and maintenance) plus four times the total number of functional,
environmental, and run-in cycles. (See notes on Design Life Verification, section 5.7.)

b. Non-human-rated mechanisms shall be life tested to at least two times the number of
planned operational cycles plus four times the total number of ground cycles (including
assembly, installation, and maintenance) plus four times the total number of functional,
environmental, and run-in cycles. (See notes on Design Life Verification, section 5.7.)

OK. I've been a little pissy, i apologize.
I'm glad it got your attention.

I must confess, i as i write this, don't have a clue about this paper work and standards, and honestly don't expect to be able to chew through all of it, if not necessary.

SpaceX will move to KSC, and you will be able to watch everything what they do, and please, do complain, loudly.
If i understand Charles Bolden correctly, there will be different procedures for different providers, and i'm sure there must be a way to get his attention, if you have something to say.

Just talk facts, not air, i've seen you know how to do it.

Those papers are things that NASA, learning on their mistakes, wrote for NASA. It might not work for everyone as it is.
I guess Russians have different procedures and requirements, and still pretty good statistics.

 

[nimbus]

Better yet, send it to SpaceX. Musk explicitely challenged ASAP to name something of SpaceX's that's not to spec, as they assert in the report.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifwFa5DtIps[/youtube]

7'30"

 

[mr_mark]

I have a feeling this argument will be mute in about a month after the launch of falcon 9, which i have a hunch will be successful. Politics and publicity will take over and most senators will come online to the idea of commercial. Just a note Spacex does not really need NASA in the long run. In fact, NASA needs them more than Spacex needs them. Remember, Spacex's first sattellite launch was for Malaysia and they have plenty of international clients already booked for their services. After a decade or so, if the game United States becomes too hard due to poilitics, Spacex being a corporation can reestablish itself anywhere in the world and launch private astronauts or astronaunts from other countries. It's a business not a program. :roll:

 

[jakethesnake]

Well EarthlingX… all you have to do is look back though my posts and I am certainly guilty of getting pissy from time to time so no apology necessary.

All I am pointing out is that at this point SpaceX has never launched a Falcon 9 and even if they have designed there hardware to be robust enough to handle four time the design limits the real world testing has yet to begin.

1st you design.

2nd you test.

3rd you redesign.

Problems that seem to stand out to me at this point for a HR rated Falcon 9:

1. The complexity of no less than nine engines and even SpaceX recognizes this hence the exploring of a three engine design.

2. No abort system for the Dragon Capsule.

3. Has never flown i.e. no real world data.

4. Being a privately held company SpaceX has not been audited and most likely has taken shortcuts.

Positives that stand out to me for the HR rated Falcon 9:

1. Designed from the ground up with current technology.

2. Supposedly designed with the intent to be human rated i.e. able to handle four times the design limits.

3. Being a private company SpaceX has the agility to make changes on the fly.

The problem I see is that the United States is going to throw its faith and capital to not just SpaceX but to the Private sector in an endeavor that I still believe is “Rocket Science”… this is highlighted by the FACT that at this point only three nations have been able to get humans into LEO!

This is not like building automobiles or Airplanes!

 

[jakethesnake]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

Everyone seems to be missing two VERY important things here and that is REDUNDANCY and REDUNDANCY!

The Atlas 5 doesn’t have human rated redundancy of systems.

The Delta IV heavy doesn’t have human rated redundancy of systems.

The Falcon 9 doesn’t have human rated redundancy of systems.

Also, to human rate these launchers would require a monumental undertaking to say the least!

!

You don't understand the human rating requirements.

Redundancy in itself is not a requirement. Read the NASA standard.

Also, Ares I doe not have the redundancy you claim.

You have no clue about human rating vehicles

Not all systems have to be redundant but you are most definitely incorrect, many systems do.

If you would like I will guide you to those specifics.

Or you can do what I did go through all of them as I have.

Refer to the link I have already provided.

 

[jakethesnake]

1. No history... never been launched... no repeatability… no reproducibility … and a total statistical nothing!

SRB's have been launched for 30 years with only one misshap.... and keep in mind there were icicles hanging everywhere with subfreezing temperatures the night before when that occurred.


2. Baseline DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR MECHANISMS

1. same thing is applicable to Ares I. The 5 segment SRB is a new design. The casings are the same, but the propellant grain is different , there are new avionics in the SRB, new nozzle, new materials etx. It has changed so much that it can't be said that it is the same engineering wise per NASA standards (even though NASA PR spin says differently) The Ares I upperstage is new and so is the IU.

2. Not a requirement on launch vehicles, see NPR Human-Rating Requirements for Space Systems

Although going to a five segment SRB is more than just a design change it is a technology that is well understood and understood by ATK with many decades of experience under their belt.

Also, ATK has many years of REAL WORLD testing and a statistical universe to rely on.

SpaceX does NOT!

 

[nimbus]

SpaceX could have those years of experience by the time Ares would have been "ready" in 2017 or so. Now we're repeating things. And anyway, it's not just SpaceX.

I wager Byeman knows what he's talking about. Just a hunch

And I'm curious if you could answer Musk's question.