ESAS Ch. 6 gives four reasons for choosing the Shuttle-based CLV, yet strangely event he data int he study doesn’t really support them:

1. Cost – but the cost for the Delta even in the study, which insisted the rocket and lauch pad would have to be be essentially redesigned, was essentially the same.

2. Safety – The Delta Heavy was said to be more hazardous because of the need to jettison the two outer core stages. This is very difficult to understand since the actual staging is simple compared to the separation of SRBs from the shuttle, since it occurs at 75km altitude, above the sensible atmosphere, and of course the boosters are shut down first. Yet no consideration was given to the fact that liquid fuel rockets can shut down, or extend burn time, and can be tested before flight, or the fact that solids have some rapid failure modes that might not leave time for crew escape, or the fact that safety assessments are more accurate on a design that is actually flying. The ESAS actually found Delta safety _met_ the requirements, but with “a lower margin” than the CLV.

3. Use of “man-rated” shuttle components. However most of the components of the CLV booster are modified considerably (i.e. to add roll control, a fifth segment, etc), and the guidance, control, upper stage, etc. are new.

4. Use of existing GSE. However it would require very substantial mods to LC-39 and the VAB, since the rocket is much taller than the shuttle, as opposed to the Delta which needs only a crew access arm and a faster elevator in the FUT (the existing one was intended for moving equipment and is quite slow.)

ESAS also required a redesigned booster for the Delta to eliminate the hydrogen flames at launch, although they do not appear to have any impact on safety. However the obvious way to eliminate the flames, if it’s really needed, would be an extraction fan in the flame duct to maintain a flow of air downward around the engines during ignition.

The ESAS report had a section on the human rating considerations for the EELV’s.

nasawatch.com has a copy of the ESAS:

Section 6.5.4 Human-Rating Considerations for EELV at http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/ESAS.REPORT.06.PDF

Its starts on Page 414 of the report (54 of 150 in the PDF document).

I hope it helps,

i_s_s_alpha

You really thought that one through. Heh. heh.

Actually, there is an article in this week’s Space News about the Foundation’s white paper: “Space Group Criticizes NASA’s Plans To Explore the Moon, Mars and Beyond”. It’s on p.11 of the current (August 7) issue. It’s written by Leonard David, and looks similar to his piece on the paper that appeared on SPACE.com when the paper was published last month.

I never mentioned here an ‘all EELV program’, I’m only recommending the modest step of replacing the Ares I/Ares V plan which use a common 5 segment SRB with a Delta IV/Ares V plan which use a common RS-68 engine plus avoid developing the 5 segment SRB and use the existing 4 segment SRB on the Ares V. An all EELV program is something else entirely. Though I would say the current Ares V design is more EELV derived than Shuttle derived.

As for cost savings…

Development cost of Delta IV already flying, zero.

Development cost of Ares I paper rocket, 3 billion for the 1st stage alone and climbing.

I don’t need any conspiracy theory for those numbers to speak volumes.

Now obviously the current Delta IV is not ‘human rated’ whatever that means. I would fly the CEV on the existing Delta IV and it would still be an enormous safety advance compared to flying the Space Shuttle. Now perhaps ‘human rating’ of the Delta IV would cost as many billions as the Ares I is devouring, but even that’s hard to believe since the whole Delta IV rocket development program was less than a billion dollars in the first place.

I know all the pro-EELV pundits assert that but why hasn’t Boeing or Lockheed been able to explain that point to Congress? Is every Congress-critter and the White House and the Pentagon all in on the scam?

DoD is a significant purchaser of EELV. They would benefit from NASA buying EELV, but they signed off on ESAS.

That suggests to me there really isn’t any “billions in savings” by going EELV.

Even if SRB production was interupted the billions saved from needless waste on the Ares I more than makes up for that gap. (Plus keep in mind the savings from mass production of the Delta IV/Ares V common RS-68) If reproducing the J-2 engine after decades out of production is not a deal stopper I don’t see how restarting SRB production after a gap of 7 years is a deal stopper.

And that gap will be shorter if overall savings are directed to an accelerated timetable for the Ares V.

Once the Ares V is shed of the 5 segment-SRB, the rationalization for the Ares I is gone.

True, Ares V does not need a 5 segment SRB. But it does need either a 4 or 5 segment SRB and if Thiokol shuts down SRB processing for 7 or 8 years where will any SRBs come from?

If a 4 segment Ares 1 was powerful enough to get the job done, that would be NASA’s choice. Apparently it isn’t so the extra capability for Ares V just falls into place.

= = =

The debate really is the “O’Keefe/Steidle” vision versus the “Griffin” vision and Griffin has vetted ESAS with the Pentagon, White House and Congress and has gotten their approval, at least tacitly.

So instead of the Ares I aiding the Ares V, today the Ares I is really a drag on the Ares V. If the objective is to support HLV, than supporting the Ares I is counterproductive.

If shuttle is terminated on 30 September 2010 and CEV flies on EELV and Ares V first flies in 2017 or 2018 then Thiokol needs to keep those SRB segment assembly lines functional without selling any segments. Very expensive and close those lines down and where will the SRBs come from in 2018?

Using a 5 segment SRB Ares 1 keeps the Thiokol production lines (refurbishment, really) running.

On this point I agree with Brad:

I think the true reason for the Ares I CLV selection was to support the Ares V CaLV. NASA really-really wants a Heavy Launch Vehicle and (as originally conceived) the Ares I commonality with the Ares V in effect subsidizes the Ares V development and operational costs.

But why heavt lift? Mars.

Whether Delta IV or Atlas V truly is cheaper is the $6.4 billion dollar question. But even if EELV is “cheaper” how much cheaper?

If this is a 55 / 45 decision there is a whole lot of wasted energy here.

Remember, Griffin went to the Pentagon and got their approval for ESAS. Griffin also went to the White House and got their approval for ESAS. After ESAS was announced, NASA got its first authorization from Congress in a long long time. That presumably signals that Congress is content with ESAS.

Griffin’s bureaucratic ship of state now has a mighty powerful head of steam. Perhaps the NewSpace people should root for SpaceX to succeed as fast as possible so those 5 segment SRBs are used ONLY for Ares V and Ares 1 is cancelled in favor of Falcon.

Again, once Falcon 5 and 9 start flying regularly, both EELVs will be dinosaurs.

= = =

I also believe (correct me if wrong) that a 5 segment SRB Ares 1 cannot compete with Musk’s Falcon series due to a limitation on the number of segment casings that currently exist.

I read somewhere that Thiokol has ceased making new metal casings for the SRBs and intends to merely continue refurbishing existing ones after each shuttle flight until 2010 and Ares 1 flights thereafter. To re-tool and start making new solid casings will be expensive, yet there are plenty for the next few decades (and liquid fly-back strap-ons are intended for Ares V 15 or 20 or 25 years out).

Therefore, Ares 1 CANNOT compete with SpaceX for the tourism market (for example) as EELV can. And once Ares V is deployed, using a finite number of casings for LEO-only access would be foolish, opening the door wider for COTS.

I do, but I’m not at liberty to release it…