While all the attention of late has been on policy machinations taking place in Washington, there’s activity at the state level as well. On Wednesday Florida’s space industry will be conducting it’s annual Florida Space Day in Tallahassee. While the specifics of their meetings with state legislators aren’t stated (the site still states “More info to come soon” just a day before the event) they’ll likely seek support for space industry incentives proposed by Gov. Crist in January as well as a separate “Space Transition and Revitalization Act” he announced in February. Those are part of efforts designed to partially mitigate the job losses associated with the impending retirement of the shuttle and cancellation of Constellation, which was the purpose of a rally Saturday in Titusville that drew up to 2,000 people.
While the NASA FY11 budget may not have a lot of supporters on the Space Coast of Florida, it may have some in the House of Delegates in Virginia. A resolution introduced by Del. Tarry Kilgore, HR 21, commends NASA for “fostering greater development of commercial space launch services” in the proposed budget. Virginia hopes to benefit from this greater emphasis on commercial services with the Mid-Altantic Regional Spaceport, which will host launches of Orbital Science’s Taurus 2 rocket and Cygnus spacecraft on cargo missions to the ISS. On his Spaceports blog, Jack Kennedy also notes that the Virginia legislature is working to remove a sunset provision from a spaceflight indemnification law. That legislation, passed in 2007, protects commercial human spaceflight operators in the state from liability in the event of accidents; it currently expires on July 1, 2013.
Virginia was the first state to pass such indemnification legislation, and was followed by Florida. Now New Mexico has a similar law, after Gov. Bill Richardson signed the Space Flight Informed Consent Act into law Saturday in Las Cruces. The bill, SB 9, passed both houses of the state legislature without a single no vote.
Ten years from now all the people who opposed this change in plan…will be claiming it as theirs Robert G. Oler
Only if it works!
John wrote @ March 2nd, 2010 at 12:53 pm
I guess things can always get worse, but only if the current course is followed!
this is where NASA HSF was before the “change”.
The Ares/Orion program to resupply/crew the space station had gotten so far into the future that the date of its first flight was AFTER the space station had already ceased to exist…Even that date could not be made unless the space station was toasted because the program to resupply and recrew the station had grown so expensive that it needed the money that the station was consuming.
All this based on a program that started in 2004 with the stated goal of retiring the shuttle in 2010…so NASA had six years to make it work and billions of dollars (more then spent on Atlas/Delta/Falcon 1/9) and couldnt do it.
What is impressive is that there is no shame, no “wow we blew it” at NASA on Ares 1. These folks have spent more money then Atlas/Delta/Falcon1/9 and they have no vehicle…and no one is being blamed for that.
It is hard to imagine how things could be worse.
Robert G. Oler
It could get a lot worse. Commercial providers could hit the inevitable delays which would lead to another government study and course correction. R&D funding into those “trasformitive technologies” could get eliminated, cut or ear-marked to death without an over-arching plan to combine the support for all projects. Not that that was much help to Constellation but I think it would be even easier to drop individual projects than a whole path forward.
“Commercial providers could hit the inevitable delays which would lead to another government study and course correction.”
Sure! But how many times can you do that if you are given $9B like Ares/Orion? How much is the cost to NASA for F9?
Let’s put it this way. When I started on Constellation I knew that if NASA blew it it would be the end of HSF at NASA as it used to be. So clear your mind and hear me well. If the commercials blow it this time around it will be the end of NASA HSF as well as US HSF commercial or not for decades to come. NASA will see its budget amputated by its HSF budget: More or less $10B. And that’ll be it. If I were NASA I would do my best to help out this new effort and they can help, no question. All doom and gloom: Look at Constellation really really hard if you don’t believe me. In 4/5 years a lot of people at NASA and the contractors will have retired and they will not be renewed therefore no one not even Sen. Shelby will be able to make a case for budget for NASA HSF.
common sense wrote @ March 2nd, 2010 at 2:22 pm
then maybe human spaceflight should “go under” as you indicate.
We have seen over the last 30 years “the best” NASA can do. From 1980 to today they have tried about as hard as they can and right now we have…for about 100 plus billion…two Americans in LEO supplied by a vehicle …the shuttle that cost 1 billion a pop to fly.
If two or three commercial folks cannot do in spaceflight/rocketry what is done in Aviation…ie provide a service…then maybe the entire thing is just to darn hard to do economically.
I dont think that is the case. My beliefis that the Free Enterprise system will do what it always does…amaze us all. But if it cannot then “the dream is dead”.
Robert G. Oler
@Robert Oler:
Look, I am not saying it cannot be done. I am sure it can be done. But there are a few catches. For Constellation, the original O’Keefe’s implementation left a lot of flexibility with the contractors. It was a good start aand this WH’s plan is not that different, in essence. NASA managed to mess up the whole thing, so much so that HSF is given a last chance via the commercial route. BUT when it comes to crew NASA will again have a lot of say in what the commercials do. Don’t fool yourself as I would not. If the commercials fly NASA crews, NASA will be all over them to check for say “human ratings”. My warning to NASA is not to let go the human rating requirements for example BUT to make sure they make all possible sense and that they don’t mess up design requirements with other operational requirements (such as human ratings). Yes, NASA in that sense can still mess up everything for NASA. It is a difficult business but it is very easy to mess up. So rather than what many are claiming for such as destinations and dates I would rather have NASA work on what they want out of this new plan and how they will go about it in as much an open partnership as possible with the providers. Otherwise, mark my words, it’ll be the end this time.
common sense wrote @ March 2nd, 2010 at 2:47 pm
I concur with this completely.
the concept of “Human rating” is in my view the next big hurdle…there has to be a discussion of reasonable risk/rewards…and if NASA cannot make that work then the commercial people have to be prepared to lobby for the correct approach…and if that wont go…then some business plan to bypass that and “go someother direction”…perhaps Bigelow with a station complex.
The next 10 years or so have to be focused on making something useful out of the investment in ISS or more generally the ability of humans to operate in LEO…my hope is that the new COTS effort is going to be a lot like the airmail contract where when the USAAF floundered there was a reasonable plan to provide the service and the service was more important then almost anything else.
The next few years have to see the NASA HSF bureaucracy “die”.
They have managed to kill themselves and need to be offed before they do anymore damage.
Robert G. Oler
@ Oler, Common Sense….
You guys keep going down the mean/incompetent NASA path and I agree NASA putting an unreasonable burden on commercial HSF would be disastrous, but what I mentioned in my earlier post is likely to happen even with a fully cooperative NASA.
Cutting off funding for individual projects like the HLV engine or advanced propulsion is easier when they are not tied to an over arching mission.
Delays, troubles or god forbid a deadly accident by one or more of the commercial providers could prompt another Augustine commission with another change of direction after a few years and more billions of dollars. I don’t think congress or the public will be as patient with a commercial provider as they have with NASA.
I love the idea of exploration and investigation into the unknown, but considering the large budget that NASA works with, there has to be a lot produced by their projects… personally I think that unmanned spacecraft provide a much better value.
But more on topic, bureaucracy will always be inefficient, and I think that ending NASA’s will be one of the most important steps to keeping the program healthy.
Luke Connolly
Umm, is Delta/Atlas/Falcon human rated?
Were they built to take people to the moon?
So then, you can’t really compare it to a man rated moon capable design.
Ares 1 is FIVE times bigger than Falcon 1 so I think it might cost more.
Ares 1 has also had a successful test flight and a successful 5 stage test in Utah. So, yes they do have a vehicle to show for it (I watched it fly). And the Orion has been tested several times also. Have you not seen any of this hardware?
Robert G. Oler wrote:
“We have seen over the last 30 years “the best†NASA can do. From 1980 to today they have tried about as hard as they can and right now we have…for about 100 plus billion…two Americans in LEO supplied by a vehicle …the shuttle that cost 1 billion a pop to fly.”
People say the shuttle is inherently dangerous and without the ability to effectively abort during powered flight that is true. I will agree the the shuttle has been costly to operate and never remotely lived up to the hype as being cheap access to space. But I think that was too much to expect considering the design compromises necessitated by an reasonable budget and the unique capabilities that the shuttle has provided the past 30 years.
The ability to take over 25 tons of cargo to LEO with a crew of seven, to perform as a platform to deploy and maintain large structures in space, the ability to bring back 15 tons of cargo and do it again are just unprecedented and far surpass any HSF capability from the past present or anything on the drawing board. We may not see comparable capability in our lifetimes.
I really would have liked to see what would have happened if the shuttle were allowed to evolve. (No I don’t think that Venture Star was it.)
So then, you can’t really compare it to a man rated moon capable design.
Ares 1 is FIVE times bigger than Falcon 1 so I think it might cost more.
Ares 1 has also had a successful test flight and a successful 5 stage test in Utah. So, yes they do have a vehicle to show for it (I watched it fly). And the Orion has been tested several times also. Have you not seen any of this hardware?
No, we’re just ignorant country bumpkins complaining about things we know nothing about. Can you dumb it down just a little bit more for us? Thanks!
May you can start explaining how Ares I (X) is a moon rated launch design.
design compromises necessitated by an reasonable budget
Should read
design compromises necessitated by an unreasonable budget
man rated, moon capable… not moon rated, sorry i have to dumb it down for ya…
While you’re at it, could you also explain how a test that consists of virtually identical hardware compared to what has flown +200 times and yet fails to address any of the actual challenges (i.e. 5 stages, vibrations that scramble the crew, etc.) facing the new design counts as a “test”?
“Umm, is Delta/Atlas/Falcon human rated?”
Falcon 9 was designed and developed from the start to be human-rated. For example, its structural margins meet NASA’s old human-rating requirements, before they were reduced for Ares I.
Delta/Atlas meet NASA’s new human-rating requirements for Ares I. And, unlike Ares I, they have a proven history of launching multi-billion dollar spy satellites that are critical to national security and dangerous, nuclear-powered payloads that could shorten the lifetimes of thousands of people if they experience critical launch failures. Ares I could never have caught up with the proven flight safety record of either EELV.
“Were they built to take people to the moon?”
No launch vehicle takes people to the Moon, including Ares I/V. They all put spacecraft in orbit, which then fire transit stages to leave Earth orbit.
You might want to bone up on some basics about human space exploration architectures.
“Ares 1 is FIVE times bigger than Falcon 1 so I think it might cost more.”
A goofy comparison. Falcon 1 is a small, Pegasus-class launcher. Falcon 9 is the intermediate, EELV-class launcher that Ares I needlessly duplicates.
You might want to bone up on launch vehicle sizes and classes.
“Ares 1 has also had a successful test flight”
No it hasn’t. Ares I has never flown. Ares I-X experienced multiple anomalies and failures.
“And the Orion has been tested several times also.”
No it hasn’t. A flight-capable Orion wouldn’t have been built, nevertheless tested or flown, for several years to come under the POR.
“Have you not seen any of this hardware?”
Yes, it wasn’t flight-test or operational hardware.
FWIW…
“You guys keep going down the mean/incompetent NASA path ”
Nope, I did not. I did not say they were incompetent. Whatever the reason, pick your choice, NASA is in this fix. And mostly because of choices made under Griffin. Incompetence? Maybe but not everywhere.
“Cutting off funding for individual projects like the HLV engine or advanced propulsion is easier when they are not tied to an over arching mission. ”
Certainly not: Constellation is terminated with all of its development.
Anything can happen and “commercials” may not be the panacea. BUT today they are the only thing left that makes any sense.
“Umm, is Delta/Atlas/Falcon human rated?
Were they built to take people to the moon?
So then, you can’t really compare it to a man rated moon capable design.
Ares 1 is FIVE times bigger than Falcon 1 so I think it might cost more.
Ares 1 has also had a successful test flight and a successful 5 stage test in Utah. So, yes they do have a vehicle to show for it (I watched it fly). And the Orion has been tested several times also. Have you not seen any of this hardware?”
I was about to reply but others were faster. Daydreaming… This is what in part killed Constellation.
@MrEarl:
Shuttle is a magnificent design/vehicle, especially for one that dates back to the 60s. VentureStar may very well have been a great successor. But this is all beyond the point. The NASA that designed Shuttle is gone. That is reality. Another point is that in order to explore Space you don’t need a Shuttle. You need an infrastructure. Said infrastructure will use capsules possibly today. Tomorrow? I don’t know but with a limited budget you start with what is the least expensive: Capsules.
frotski wrote @ March 2nd, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Umm, is Delta/Atlas/Falcon human rated?
Were they built to take people to the moon?
So then, you can’t really compare it to a man rated moon capable design.
Ares 1 is FIVE times bigger than Falcon 1 so I think it might cost more…
even assuming you are correct and that metric (size/thrust something) was a good indicator of cost…”might cost more”…is a hoot.
Ares has cost “far more” then Atlas/Delta/FAlcon 1/9 combined and to get it to something useful is going to cost far more again.
Besides “Ares 1″ is not going to the Moon…it can barely make it to LEO with the Orion on it…and the test you chorttle about (Ares 1X and the 5 segment on its side)…proved NOTHING
nice try…how does the Kool aide taste
Robert G. Oler
MrEarl wrote @ March 2nd, 2010 at 4:15 pm ..
everything has its time and its place and when that time or place is past rarely are there second chances at the same or even a different evolution.
I agree there were opportunities to evolve the shuttle. I understand why but it just really annoys me that NASA never took the chance to try and figure out how to evolve the design to “do things” that lowered the cost and uped the utilization for the vehicle.
the problem is thatby the time the station was actually ready for deployment, having to deploy it on the shuttle did a “Lot” Of bad things…drive up the cost, stillborn a launch industry in the US etc.
Sadly the shuttle is one of those vehicles that had a lot of potential and never met it.
time to move on
Robert G. Oler
Mr Earl wrote:
“Delays, troubles or god forbid a deadly accident by one or more of the commercial providers could prompt another Augustine commission with another change of direction after a few years and more billions of dollars.”
I do not believe you will see the same attention on a commercial launch as a NASA launch. Witness the commercial space accident suffered by Scaled Composities. It was not even covered in my local paper. It was just seen as an industrial accident. Unless an accident occurs that can sell advertising with higher ratings then “standard” news it will be back paged. Look at auto accidents, small boating accidents, small personal aircraft. It will be looked at like an extreme sports accident, like climbing everest and soon out of the public eye.
Vladislaw,
I don’t know what papers you read but the Scaled Composites accident was front page new at the Baltimore Sun and on the local news and their web sites. Space travel, government and commercial, sub-orbital and LEO, will have our attention for a long time.
“Space travel, government and commercial, sub-orbital and LEO, will have our attention for a long time.”
When you say “our” do you mean the public? Because if it is what you mean, the public cares a lot more about their jobs and health than space and rightfully so. It may make some “nice” front cover of local news paper in Mojave and possibly elsewhere but it won’t last. When was last that the Baltimore Sun reported on Virgin Galactic or even Scaled when related to Space?
Another point is that in order to explore Space you don’t need a Shuttle. You need an infrastructure. Said infrastructure will use capsules possibly today. Tomorrow? I don’t know but with a limited budget you start with what is the least expensive: Capsules.
Cx and COTS are both dead ends. Cx just redoes Apollo at great expense. COTS just let’s you maintain the ISS. The will all take years to do as well. The answer is simple and that is to forget all of this and continue with the Shuttle for another decade. We should use that time to make additional orbiters to replace the again three. The we will not only have a robust capability to continue to construct the refueling deopots, and to support other orbital operations.
The good news for you COTS guys is that a lot of that work will continue too. The SpaceX and Orbital are already involved in the ISS supply efforts and that can evolve into eventual crewed missions. Our continued access to LEO will allow us to continue to negotiate good rates with the Russians to use their Soyuz. The only real rationale for ending the Shuttle now is the Cx moon mission and that is gone.
“The only real rationale for ending the Shuttle now is the Cx moon mission and that is gone”
The rationale does not matter any more since the decision was taken back in 2004 with the VSE to terminate Shuttle and so it is.
The *real* rationale to terminate Shuttle, beyond its associated safety risks, is its cost to operate. The *real* reason to terminate Constellation is that it would cost as much to operate or even more (!) than Shuttle since it uses the same infrastructure and fly even less often. Shuttle and SDLV are one single issue: They represent 1000s of jobs that cannot just be terminated yet they need to be in order to go forward. The cost of Shuttle is too large to let us do anything substantial for exploration. Cost was somehow neglected on Constellation and it killed the program.
Always the same story with the cake and eating it. Unfortunately.
I do not believe you will see the same attention on a commercial launch as a NASA launch.
If there are NASA astronauts on board we sure will. Even higher attention than is normal for Shuttle mission will be paid to the first few “commercial” missions. And of course to any subsequent “commercial” missions that kills the astronauts.
“Commercial” is just a euphemism in this case. It’s still government contracting, it will still be NASA funded, and it will still be hyped for the same reason NASA astronaut missions have always been hyped — the hype is where the political funding comes from. Don’t take euphemisms so seriously.
“If there are NASA astronauts on board we sure will. Even higher attention than is normal for Shuttle mission will be paid to the first few “commercial†missions.”
I believe this is a true statement for reasons that go even beyond the funding and the hype: NASA HSF survival.
googaw wrote @ March 2nd, 2010 at 8:00 pm
If there are NASA astronauts on board we sure will. Even higher attention than is normal for Shuttle mission will be paid to the first few “commercial†missions. And of course to any subsequent “commercial†missions that kills the astronauts. ..
I dont think so.
The space community in my view drew the wrong (with NASA’s help) message from Columbia and Challenger. What “repulsed” the American people about those two accidents was not the accident itself, but that the consensus came to be that the accident was preventable…and what was being done when the accident occurred was not very worthwhile.
NASA (and most space activist) blow up the importance of Astronauts to the American people. What gets the American people about “lives” is when those lives are wasted.
I am sure that the first loss of life on the COTs train will get some ink…but human spaceflight went on after Columbia and Challenger…and those were simple incompetence.
Robert G. Oler
NASA (and most space activist) blow up the importance of Astronauts to the American people.
They certainly blow up the importance of astronauts, but they do convince enough Americans and in particular they convince enough politicians to motivate billions of dollars a year of funding for said astronauts. Indeed, they’ve convinced most of the posters on this board that HSF is supposedly central to human endeavors in space. In fact for the important practical uses of space HSF is completely tangential. Why do so many treat HSF as central when it is really tangential to the use of space? Because we have been convinced by NASA astronaut propaganda, starting when we were children and lasting all your life, that astronauts are central to the space program.
There is far more problem to that view than just the fact that the astronauts work for the government. NASA’s main problem is not that it costs too much. It’s main problem is that it chooses to do wrong things. It pursues economic fantasies. You can’t privatize an economic fantasy. You can only shut it down when people grow tired of subsidizing it.
With COTS the subsidy still roles in, for now, and for the same reasons — astronauts bring NASA publicity and public support. If or when that hype goes away, NASA’s HSF budget gets cut, and COTS along with it. As long as you’re taking NASA’s HSF money, you have to play NASA’s HSF game. And the central part of that game is hyping the astronauts as superhuman American heroes that deserve the support of American politicians, who otherwise risk making the U.S. look second-rate. When that game goes away, NASA HSF funding and COTS goes away. The glamour, the romantic facade, the putting the face on the robots that do the real work in space, is where NASA’s HSF funding comes from. And thus in turn where Boeing’s, SpaceX’s, etc. HSF funding comes from.
Just because people are throwing around the euphemism “commercial” here does not make the magical difference folks are attributing to it. There is no game change here. It is still practically 100% NASA HSF funding and it is still the NASA HSF game. Real commerce lies elsewhere. Deceive yourself on this matter and you will spend your future disappointed.
I think we are drawing the wrong analogies. A loss of crew failure in a fledgling commercial HFS would be closer to the Apollo 1 fire. If you remember there was serious push back from the senate to end manned space flight as it was called in those days.
googaw is right about one thing, primary funding will come from NASA and I’m sure congress will treat it as a government program.
It’s my opinion that any extended delays in deployment or requests for additional funding will cause congress to rethink the whole thing.
When wholly commercial space launches NASA astronauts, there will be a big American Flag, along with a big NASA logo, along with the companies logo. It will launch from the Cape, it will be covered live on NASA TV, just as the Shuttle is. Loading, docking procedures, reentry. All of it. In the end it will be a NASA mission. Look at how NASA has been launching probes and satellites since 1999 (last STS deployment of a satellite). Look at the MER launches as an example; here is a launch of Spirit, note the Delta posting, and the Boeing Logo, among several others.
Nothing has changed with regards to the public viewing astronauts into space. What will have changed, however, is how much taxpayers pay to put people in to space. By nearly an order of magnitude. (Not exaggerating, if you go by the $80 million per seat low-balled estimate on STS, and go with Elon’s $10 million per seat, also probably low-balled estimate, it’s almost an order of magnitude cheaper.)
“They certainly blow up the importance of astronauts… With COTS the subsidy still roles in…”
The government paying for good and services it needs is not a “subsidy”, even if the justification for the need is weak. Like civil human space flight, many Cold War-era weapons systems have weak justifications, but we wouldn’t call DOD payments to procure them “subsidies”.
“When that game goes away, NASA HSF funding and COTS goes away.”
For better or worse, the United States is unlikely to give up its civil human space flight program. It’s an ingrained part of the nation’s identity.
But if it does happen someday (and it may), a commercially owned and operated human space flight infrastructure has an opportunity to survive the death of the civil human space flight program. But a government-owned and -operated human space flight infrastructure, like what the Space Shuttle is or what Ares I/V would have been, is guaranteed to end when the civil program ends.
“Real commerce lies elsewhere.”
Remains to be seen. Space Adventures and Soyuz have generated about $240 million in private space flight revenue (eight tourists to date have paid $25-35 million each). An unknown (at least to me) number of prospective tourists have also paid Space Adventures $5 million each to be a member of the company’s Explorers’ Circle and receive preferential treatment for future orbital flights. Markets can always fizzle, but these numbers, along with a long history of privately sponsored market studies, would indicate that there is a real market for private orbital human space flight with unmet demand.
Of course, I wouldn’t begrudge the development of other space markets. It will be interesting to see what becomes of the robotic capabilities being developed in pursuit of the Google Lunar X PRIZE, for example.
FWIW…
It looks like Buzz Aldrin has weighed in on supporting continued use of the Space Shuttle.
“Why should we abandon something before a replacement ship is available? Sure doesn’t make much sense to me,” he said.
http://www.universetoday.com/2010/03/02/buzz-aldrin-says-we-can-get-to-mars-by-2019/
This is also tied in with the Charlie Bolden Mars objective.
googaw wrote @ March 2nd, 2010 at 8:40 pm
They certainly blow up the importance of astronauts, but they do convince enough Americans and in particular they convince enough politicians to motivate billions of dollars a year of funding for said astronauts. Indeed, they’ve convinced most of the posters on this board that HSF is supposedly central to human endeavors in space…
While on the surface that paragraph would be entertaining…I dont know that I agree with it as a practical fact.
I actually think that human spaceflight in The Republic could end…and most the overriding vast majority of Americans would not care. I have thought that for sometime…and as the economics have gotten worse in The Republic I think that more and more.
I really think that a strong leader (we can debate if Obama is that) can make just about any course change he wants to in things that the American people do not percieve that they have a direct stake in…and it will stick (for instance I think Obama could have withdrawn from Afland and not have suffered much blow back).
In my view space advocates do not fully comprehend the politics of how “human space flight” is sold or not sold in The Republic. I dont think that the “glamour” of it has much to do with it…
Robert G. Oler
Space Shuttle Man wrote @ March 2nd, 2010 at 11:12 pm
no one cares. Really and what he advocates cannot be done…
Robert G. Oler
government paying for good and services it needs
Who decided that government “needs” astronauts, Major Tom? What are the astronauts doing for science? Extremely little; the scientists say that much more could be done with much less money using unmanned labs. For national defense? Nothing except being big fat targets for Iranian missiles should we go to war with them. The DoD long ago dispensed with astronauts as being far more of a liability than a help. Astronauts are a creation of pure politics. Indeed, they are a creation of unique Cold War politics that is rapidly fading into history. The “need” for astronauts has nothing to do except in lame excuse with being useful to the government’s core functions like national defense, science, and so on. This government “need” astronauts is a political process that has nothing to do with either core government functions or with private markets.
It is utterly preposterous to compare this “need” with the early air-mail market. In the early days of aviation, mail was a very mature market, a market thousands of years old: as far from a hypothetical market as you can get. The mail market was not about government deciding it needed to send letters to itself to entertain the public or to enhance national prestige. It was about millions of people paying to send letters because they found sending and receiving letters to be very useful. People who, it had already long been well-established by centuries of experience, would pay extra to get their mail delivered faster.
Just like today millions of people connect to each other around the world through satellite communications. Communications is a real need, a real market, not a political leftover of strange Cold War politics.
Airmail thus was simply a new way to satisfy an already existing and large market demand. And, BTW, the first airplanes, the first airfields, and so on — practically all the initial infrastructure of aviation was privately developed, and future government versions largely copied it. Same as for practically all other kinds of infrastructure developed during and since the industrial revolution.
How you can compare small subsidies based on the mature market demand for faster mail delivery to the practically (within the rounding error) 100% NASA subsidy of HSF, based either on some supposed “need” for governments to fly astronauts or on speculations about hypothetical future space tourism (rather than real orbital tourism which is a miniscule fraction of what governments spend on HSF), boggles the mind. Many here are under a serious spell — the spell of NASA propaganda, the spell of the heavenly flights of astronauts that the media has put us under since we were children. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that bubble is about to burst.
Errata: I wrote:Same as for practically all other kinds of infrastructure developed during and since the industrial revolution.
The should read “…all other new kinds of infrastructure.” Obviously, governments have often nationalized or copied the basic designs and purposes of infrastructure that was originally a matter of private innovation. But governments have an extremely poor track record when trying to innovate new kinds of infrastructure (the sad history of NASA in this regard being a prime example).
no one cares. Really and what he advocates cannot be done…
What matters is saving the Shuttle as Cx goes away. The attempt to make the required HLV will result in Direct be started. This is what is important. Bolden is looking for something to bail himself out of his problems with Congress.
Space Shuttle Man wrote @ March 2nd, 2010 at 11:42 pm
no one cares. Really and what he advocates cannot be done…
What matters is saving the Shuttle as Cx goes away. ..
yes…but you see most dont want to save the shuttle system (I dont) and it wont be saved…the shutdowns occurring “now” are making a restart almost economically imposssible. you have to learn how to kill a government program.
Robert G. Oler
The Aldrin idea is an interesting development. Bolden is no doubt trying to find a way to please his two masters: the President and Congress. The President has no real idea on this. He wants to do something different than Bush and not to spend too much. Congress want to save jobs in their districts. There is also the practical problem of the gap in LEO capability. Extending the shuttle solves much of this.
I thought the Shuttle was dead but maybe not. Hard to tell. There are no really good options.
John wrote @ March 3rd, 2010 at 12:10 am
The Aldrin idea is an interesting development. ..
Buzz has had his cycler theory for a bit…and it is a really good idea that one day might have some traction…but the sad fact is that after 100’s of billions we are not in a position to economically deploy assets which can explore the Moon much less Mars.
Really no nation has that capability.
Robert G. Oler
@John,
As far as I know and read Obama does not want something different than Bush. He is trying to get NASA operations more in line with the VSE again. Constellation is the brainchild of Griffin and it resulted in a move away from the VSE, leading to two rockets, a CEV and a moon lander, two launches a year, very much directed to the moon only.
The VSE has a much wider view than that and included commercial space transport.
Extending the Space Shuttle is nuts! That’s one of the big reasons why we are in this mess today. The Shuttle program sucked up so much money that there was never any way to fund a replacement. There is also that little problem of safety as well.
At nearly one billion dollars per flight, the shuttle program costs approximately US$150 million per astronaut seat. And that’s if you fly five times a year. Unfortunately, the cost of fewer flights per year (say two) to stretch out the program does not really bring the cost down, as the main cost is jobs. You must still pay the thousands of shuttle workers regardless of how many flights you fly. With two flights per year, that’s about US$ 500 million per astronaut seat. When you realize the cost of getting an astronaut to orbit on the shuttle, the cost of a US$ 50 million seat on a Soyuz looks positively cheap by comparison.
The best solution to save the patient (HSF) is amputation. If you are unwilling to suffer the pain you condemn the patient to a slow and horrible death from gangrene.
But then, if even some of the money you saved by shutting the shuttle down was able to help speed up commercial providers in their efforts to develop commercial human spaceflight capabilities, the cost of getting to orbit could almost become reasonable. And the rest of the money saved could be used to maybe develop some new technology to get us out of the old-space-chemical-rocket heavy-lift-launch-vehicle straight jacket approach to spaceflight.
Don’t get me wrong. I love watching shuttles launch, love seeing astronauts float around on the ISS, and love seeing a program built up that’s the most impressive thing since Apollo. But I think we can all see the writing on the wall. If we are ever going to get beyond the present mission to fund a never-ending-jobs-program-to-nowhere and actually find new ways to take economic advantage of space, we have to opt for the radical surgery now while the patient is still alive. Or, to put it another way, sometimes we have to sacrifice the Queen to win the game. It’s no good to save our Queen and lose!
Honestly, it’s all about the money!
Curtis Quick
Extending the Space Shuttle is nuts! That’s one of the big reasons why we are in this mess today. The Shuttle program sucked up so much money that there was never any way to fund a replacement. There is also that little problem of safety as well.
Not true. We spent $9 billion on Constellation while flying the shuttle. We can get the $6 billion for COTS in the next five or six years. It is a workable idea that keeps us in space without depending on the Russians.
“Somewhere, Someday” is not a plan. It is the absence of a plan.
John,
We spent US$ 9 Billion and got what? A shuttle SRB dressed up in the emperors new clothes as Ares 1X. Don’t be fooled. A lot of people got rich NOT making a new launch vehicle called Constellation. Those who favor Constellation claim that if we just had more money it could have worked. Well, it could have worked in so far as it would have accomplished what many had designed it to do, that is create a big jobs-program-to-nowhere, but as it was, running the shuttle program meant no possible success for Constellation (although I don’t think that was ever in the cards anyway).
Frankly, I’d rather pay US$ 50 million to the Russians and embarrass us enough to get congressional support for US commercial new space with some real dollars. Supporting a shuttle extension (at US$250 million per seat) or a Constellation repreive is throwing good money after bad and going to destroy the future of the space program by getting it stuck in the past!
Curtis Quick
I think Buzz’s idea has a great deal of merit. A modular ship docked at the ISS would be perfect to test the various technologies coming out of the R&D. I think it could also be sold to congress as a smoother transition than what is in the offing now.
t. A modular ship docked at the ISS would be perfect to test the various technologies coming out of the R&D.
Tying these technologies together and giving them a specific mission before they’ve been thoroughly space-tested to a particular gigaplatform is a guarantee that they’d be conservative rather than game-changing. Daring innovations create risks, and pose these risks to each other and to the mission if tested with each other on the mission instead of tested separately on dedicated technology demonstrators.
“Falcon 9 was designed and developed from the start to be human-rated. For example, its structural margins meet NASA’s old human-rating requirements, before they were reduced for Ares I.”
Falcon 9 is man rated huh? Send me a link to this please! Nasa turned over the requirements for SpaceX to build this as man rated? Please show me the links or man rating requirements or the date on which NASA gave these to SpaceX. I GUARANTEE you that if SpaceX made Falcon 9 man rated they would put that on their website and have been telling newspapers, etc… that NASA gave them the requirements and they built to that standard. But you and I know this never happened.
You might want to bone up on your FACTS regarding man rated vehicles.
And yes, as you so well put it, comparing a Falcon to Ares is silly. I couldn’t have put it better, that’s why you can’t compare the cost between the two.
They are designed for greatly different missions and have vastly different requirements.
frotski wrote @ March 3rd, 2010 at 10:15 am ..
comparing Falcon 9 to Ares 1 is silly.
one is a well managed project that has some sense of schedule and budget…the other is on the government dole train and whatever happens is what works.
Ares is in all respects the B-32 of its day
Robert G. Oler
[Aldrin] “Why should we abandon something before a replacement ship is available? Sure doesn’t make much sense to me.â€
Because the “something” — STS — has cost so much to fly for the last 29 years that there’s never been enough to spare for a realistic program to develop a replacement?
Because we told ourselves pretty lies in 1971-1981 about achieving robust, cost-effective access to orbit in one step, in a single, first-of-its-kind design… and with few exceptions, haven’t had the honesty to admit it and get serious about how hard and slow and expensive that will be?
Because Buzz, some other astronauts, and many HSF fans have naturally developed a strong attachment to the only game in town, despite two mortal proofs that it isn’t and never was the “operational” system Reagan declared it to be after 4 (!) flights?
Because enough of the 1957-1961 “Red star on the new high ground” frenzy lives on — in the “gap” and “China gonna get yo’ lunar He3″ rhetoric of 2010 — to make it unthinkable that ZOMG our astronauts are flying FOREIGN hardware for a few years!!!”
I can’t say all that “makes much sense to me.” But it does describe where we are.
SpaceX launches rockets with a couple laptops in a van. Man rated Nasa programs have nearly 100 stations in the LCC monitoring launches. I’d say the budgets, and requirements to launch people into space cost a little more. But I’m sure you will disagree.
“But I’m sure you will disagree.”
It’s pretty easy to disagree with a liar.
“Who decided that government “needs†astronauts, Major Tom? What are the astronauts doing for science?… For national defense?… Astronauts are a creation of pure politics.”
Where did I say that astronauts are doing a lot for science? Or national defense?
For the second time in as many threads, please stop putting words in my mouth.
I agreed with you that the justification for civil human space flight is weak.
But that doesn’t mean that politicians determine how many astronauts, upmass, and downmass the ISS needs. The COTS demand model is determined by technical issues, not political whim.
“It is utterly preposterous to compare this “need†with the early air-mail market.”
Where did I compare commercial human space flight to early airmail?
Again, for the second time in as many threads, please stop putting words in my mouth.
I provided market numbers from existing commercial orbital human space flight activities. Either criticize that data, admit that your argument may be flawed, or simply don’t respond. But don’t make up an argument for me that I didn’t make.
FWIW…
“GUARANTEE you that if SpaceX made Falcon 9 man rated they would put that on their website”
Former astronaut and VP of Astronaut Safety and Mission Assurance at SpaceX, Ken Bowersox, discussed it in a presentation at an FAA commercial spaceflight conference that’s easily found on the web. Among other points that Bowersox makes:
“From their inception both Dragon & Falcon 9 were designed to readily accommodate crew”
“In every design decision, the ability to attain human rating rapidly AND at low additional cost is paramount”
“Many human-rating requirements are mandated on the cargo vehicle because it must be safe for ISS crew.”
In numerous articles, Elon Musk himself has repeatedly pointed out that Falcon 9 and Dragon already “meet all of NASA’s published human-rating requirements, apart from the escape systems”
In the Falcon 9 writeup on the SpaceX website, NASA itself has cited Falcon 9’s safety attributes in its COTS award, including:
“– First stage engine-out capability
— Dual redundant avionics system
— Structural safety factor in excess of industry standards”
This stuff is all over the place. Why can’t you find it yourself?
“You might want to bone up on your FACTS regarding man rated vehicles.”
This from a poster who doesn’t know the difference between small- and intermediate-class launch vehicles. Or between Falcon 1 and 9. Or that launch vehicles don’t go all the way to the Moon. Or who can’t do a simple Google search on SpaceX flight safety (or just read the SpaceX website).
Please…
“And yes, as you so well put it, comparing a Falcon to Ares is silly.”
Comparing Ares I and Falcon I, as you did, is goofy. It’s like comparing a truck to a compact car. Falcon 9, however, is very comparable to Ares I.
“…that’s why you can’t compare the cost between the two. They are designed for greatly different missions and have vastly different requirements.”
In terms of human space flight, Ares I and Falcon 9 do the same thing — put a capsule carrying six (Ares I) or seven (Falcon 9) crew into LEO. The requirement is practically identical.
“SpaceX launches rockets with a couple laptops in a van. Man rated Nasa programs have nearly 100 stations in the LCC monitoring launches.”
Since when has NASA included the number of computer terminals for launch control in its human-rating requirements?
Goofy…
First you hold up NASA’s human-rating requirements, then you start making up (goofy) requirements that aren’t in NASA’s documentation. Make up your mind.
“It’s pretty easy to disagree with a liar.”
Why are you resorting to namecalling? No one has called you any names in this thread.
Lawdy…
“We spent $9 billion on Constellation while flying the shuttle. We can get the $6 billion for COTS in the next five or six years. It is a workable idea…”
It’s only workable if:
— The annual Shuttle budget can be dramatically reduced from its typical level of $4-5 billion
— There are enough spares available to avoid the potentially prohibitive costs of restarting multiple Shuttle hardware lines
— Contrary to the CAIB report, Shuttle hardware does not need to be certified for flight past 2010
— A very low annual flight rate (~2 missions per year) over multiple years will keep the Shuttle workforce practiced enough to maintain flight safety
— Another orbiter is not lost early in the going, rendering the fleet inactive and making the extension moot.
A couple of these obstacles could be overcome, but it’s very doubtful they all could be.
FWIW…
I’m sorry you assumed that the number of consoles to launch a rocket has to do with man rating.
We have been talking two different points here, man rating and development costs of rockets, so please follow closely…
The “support” of a man rated rocket (ie consoles) factors into the cost of the overall program. So it has to do with cost, not man rating. DUH
My point is you can do things cheaper when humans are not riding on your rocket. But I’m sure you will disagree, but this is from someone who can’t provide even ONE link that shows the Falcon 9 is man rated from NASA.
I don’t care what a CEO thinks or says about his own rocket. What does NASA say?
“I’m sorry you assumed that the number of consoles to launch a rocket has to do with man rating.”
I didn’t assume that. You did. Here’s your language:
“SpaceX launches rockets with a couple laptops in a van. Man rated Nasa programs have nearly 100 stations in the LCC monitoring launches.”
Per your own language, based on a NASA/SpaceX comparison, you claim that a man-rated launcher should have about 100 workstations (or more than a couple), which isn’t a requirement in NASA’s human-rating requirements and would be a stupid requirement in any case.
“… this is from someone who can’t provide even ONE link that shows the Falcon 9 is man rated”
Seriously?
After I tell you that Elon Musk is repeatedly quoted in numerous articles stating that Falcon 9 and Dragon already “meet all of NASA’s published human-rating requirements, apart from the escape systems”, you can’t perform a simple web search for that quote?
After I tell you that former astronaut and VP of Astronaut Safety and Mission Assurance at SpaceX, Ken Bowersox, discussed SpaceX flight safety in a widely available presentation from an FAA commercial spaceflight conference, you can’t Google that presentation? Even after I provide three direct quotes from the presentation?
After I tell you that in the Falcon 9 writeup on the SpaceX website, NASA itself has cited Falcon 9’s safety attributes in its COTS award, you can’t go to the Space X website, click on the Falcon 9 tab, and scroll down to the quote I provided?
I mean, c’mon, no one is that lazy or incompetent.
“I don’t care what a CEO thinks or says about his own rocket. What does NASA say?
Again, from the SpaceX website, NASA’s cited the following Falcon 9 safety attributes (among others) in the COTS award:
“– First stage engine-out capability
– Dual redundant avionics system
– Structural safety factor in excess of industry standardsâ€
Geez Louise…
MrEarl:
I think Buzz’s idea has a great deal of merit. A modular ship docked at the ISS would be perfect to test the various technologies coming out of the R&D. I think it could also be sold to congress as a smoother transition than what is in the offing now.
I do too. Bolden has to find a way to bridge the gap between the general Congressional rejection of the new plan and his bosses’ rejection of Cx. This is a way out that give most of the interested groups a second best solution…including the COTS advocates.
I mean, c’mon, no one is that lazy or incompetent.
Sadly, many apparently are, here and elsewhere. It’s dismaying to have to continually rebut the same idiotic and ignorant comments from pseudononymous imbeciles.
“Sadly, many apparently are, here and elsewhere. It’s dismaying to have to continually rebut the same idiotic and ignorant comments from pseudononymous imbeciles.”
What I find particularly sad and dangerous is that some of the people (anonymously or otherwise) making baseless uneducated nonsensical statements here and elsewhere may either be staff to some politicians or at NASA or at any contractor. It sheds some light on what those who actually try to do these things seriously do face every day. And it is scary, more so than China…
But maybe I am just wrong. I hope.
Um, who is being lazy? You can write PARAGRAPHS of hearsay, but you can’t post the link to NASA saying that Falcon 9 is man rated?
YOU said it was man rated. You want to bash everyone on here if they don’t back up their statements.
So, lead by example please. Don’t post me quotes of what a CEO says, that is his OPINION.
Falcon 9 got COTS awards. Whooppee doooo… That’s not man rated now is it?
Geez Louise is right!
So, lead by example please.
Ok, this is how I define human rated – Soyuz and shuttle have flown humans in space, therefore they are human rated. Falcon 9 has not yet flown humans in space, therefore it is not yet ‘human rated’. Ares I? It doesn’t even exist.
That is, I believe, a Falcon 9 out there at SLC 40 getting ready to fly, right? Elon Musk is leading by example. Constellation supporters are not leading.
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/F1-S1-Qual-Tank.html
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/164283main_2nd_exp_conf_24_Commercial%20Opportunities_SpaceX_MrEMusk.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/189228main_setc_nnj06ta26a.pdf
“This simplifies the architecture and allows optimization of the capsule mass. The proposed crew capability wii1 also benefit from with the Falcon 9, so that the rocket can be man-rated during the course of its development.”
Are you saying NASA posts what SpaceX says without checking? That they would not mind posting things that are just lies?
Who is Louise anyway?
frotski wrote @ March 3rd, 2010 at 10:39 am
SpaceX launches rockets with a couple laptops in a van. Man rated Nasa programs have nearly 100 stations in the LCC monitoring launches…
well your claim about SpaceX is not accurate…but just because NASA doesnt understand the values of automation and computer savy launch platforms doesnt mean everyone doesnt.
We have come a long way in reducing the number of people required to “do a job” thanks to “automation” everywhere but NASA…
Robert G. Oler
Nice try, but it’s not man rated yet… Looks like some pieces are but not in it’s entirety. Maybe one day though…
“Each independent element is not required to obtain a Human-Rating Certification – the certification is for the entire crewed space system”
frotski wrote @ March 3rd, 2010 at 3:32 pm
“Nice try, but it’s not man rated yet… Looks like some pieces are but not in it’s entirety. Maybe one day though…”
Think whatever you like. Even when presented with evidence some have problems believing them.
Per the CEO’s comment on the first NASA link:
“”Falcon 9 continues to pass qualification testing in preparation for its first flight, scheduled for 2009,” said Elon Musk, CEO and CTO of SpaceX. “All hardware was designed to be man-rated, and these tests confirm that SpaceX is one step closer to flying humans on the Falcon 9/Dragon system.” ”
In the NASA SAA with SpaceX:
“that the rocket can be man-rated during the course of its development.—
Today the rocket is developed and it it sits at the Cape waiting to launch. http://spacex.com/updates.php
What more do you want? NASA sending you a confirmation note?
frotski wrote @ March 3rd, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Nice try, but it’s not man rated yet..
human rated is the phrase..and you are holding on pretty thin gruel there.
Ares is not human rated…it doesnt even exist
Robert G. Oler
Can you tell me where SpaceX/Delta/Atlas are at in the Human rating certification timeline?
http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8705_002B_&page_name=Chapter1
Please reference the chart on that page titled:
1.5 Human-Rating Certification Summary Timeline
common sense,
In the NASA SAA with SpaceX:
“that the rocket can be man-rated during the course of its development.â€â€
Today the rocket is developed and it it sits at the Cape waiting to launch. http://spacex.com/updates.php
So, first, it can be man-rated, doesn’t mean it will be or was
Second, if it is developed, then surely it has completed it’s man rating, right?
If you could just point out where they are in the Human rating certification timeline from my post above that would be great! Since as you say, it is developed and it can be man-rated then I’m sure it is was approved certified from the NASA Associate Administrator, no ?
“Um, who is being lazy? You can write PARAGRAPHS of hearsay, but you can’t post the link to NASA saying that Falcon 9 is man rated?”
No, I can’t. The filter on this blog doesn’t allow me to post those links.
And it’s not hearsay when it’s a direct quote.
Again, why is it so hard for you to cut and paste a quote into a web search engine and press enter?
Are you really so clueless that I have to point out the CNTRL-X and CNTRL-C functions on your keyboard and send you to the Google website?
C’mon, man… if you don’t know keyboard or search engine 101, you shouldn’t be posting here or anywhere else.
“YOU said it was man rated.”
I didn’t. I wrote:
“Falcon 9 was designed and developed from the start to be human-rated. For example, its structural margins meet NASA’s old human-rating requirements, before they were reduced for Ares I.”
Don’t put words in my mouth.
“You want to bash everyone on here if they don’t back up their statements. So, lead by example please.”
I’ve provided three references to back up my statement. You’ve provided nothing. And you havn’t even bothered to follow up on any of the references I provided.
If you want to engage other posters in conversation, then you need to follow up on their arguments and evidence.
But if you’re just here to play the troll, then take it elsewhere.
“Don’t post me quotes of what a CEO says, that is his OPINION.”
It’s not his opinion. It’s the analysis of his engineering teams, which have been designing Falcon 9 and Dragon to NASA’s written human-rating requirements for years now.
Duh…
“Falcon 9 got COTS awards.”
No, SpaceX (not Falcon 9) received a COTS award for Dragon development. And NASA cited multiple factors supporting Falcon 9 and Dragon safety in that win.
Duh…
“Geez Louise is right!”
This from someone who thinks that 100 workstations should be a human-rating requirement for launch vehicles, who doesn’t know the difference between launch vehicle classes, and who apparently can’t work a web search engine.
Oy vey…
frotski wrote @ March 3rd, 2010 at 3:55 pm
No I cannot say where it is in the timeline. Better ask NASA. Not me.
But you are still disputing posts on NASA’s website regarding F9 man-rating? When Elon Musk says that “all hardware was designed to be man-rated” and it is posted on a NASA site you assume that NASA C3PO office did not check? That they let absurd statements on their website? Maybe you ought to call them up and ask them. Here I rely on their source and they say so. What more do you want?
Major Tom,
Don’t put words in my mouth !
I do not think that 100 workstations should be a human-rating requirement for launch vehicles.
This is my quote:
“We have been talking two different points here, man rating and development costs of rockets, so please follow closely…
The “support†of a man rated rocket (ie consoles) factors into the cost of the overall program. So it has to do with cost, not man rating”
NOT MAN RATING
You clearly cannot comprehend a simple 3 word statement.
Let’s see what else, I actually posted the links that I referred to so I appear to be the one who can actually work a web engine, not you.
And you, preaching about the way to talk to people on hear, check the mirror Jack because you are as rude as they come.
And because someone disagrees with you they are a troll?
I did look up your links, none of them said that the vehicle was man rated, only that some of it was or it was designed to be. Is that fair?
I posted the link for you to the process involved, so please get back with me and let me know where they are in the process.
common sense has already said he doesn’t know, just because something was designed to be man rated doesn’t mean it is man rated or will ever be certified as man rated.
“common sense has already said he doesn’t know, just because something was designed to be man rated doesn’t mean it is man rated or will ever be certified as man rated.”
So what is your point? That you don’t know that F9 is man rated despite all known evidence. Okay then. You don’t know and all the evidence does not convince you since no one has told yet where F9 lies in the man rating timeline. Big deal. Even by your own metrics you cannot tell it is not man rated unlike what you implied in your original post:
“Umm, is Delta/Atlas/Falcon human rated?
Were they built to take people to the moon?
So then, you can’t really compare it to a man rated moon capable design.
Ares 1 is FIVE times bigger than Falcon 1 so I think it might cost more.
Ares 1 has also had a successful test flight and a successful 5 stage test in Utah. So, yes they do have a vehicle to show for it (I watched it fly). And the Orion has been tested several times also. Have you not seen any of this hardware?”
And btw where does Ares I lie in your timeline, do you know? I will even try and ignore the Ares I flight argument. But I can’t help: Falcon had 2 successful flights, Falcon 1 that is. See what I mean? Where has the Orion been tested to show it is man rated?
Were they built to take people to the moon?
Ares I was not designed to take people to the moon.
“Ares I was not designed to take people to the moon.”
Nope, it was tentatively, unsuccessfully so far, designed to bring a crew to some LEO where they would rdv and dock with a lunar tranfer stage brought up by an Ares V to go to the Moon. Basically Ares I was replicating what other rockets can do for a lot cheaper.
On a side note if what is reported on nasawatch comes true (http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/03/orion-under-sie.html) i.e. Orion designed for 3 crew it would finally make some sort of sense. BUT the size of the darn thing would still be an issue as I assume they would keep the OML. Pick ESAS with a 3 crew capsule and a lot of things might have been different. But they had to have a 6 crew capsule. No can’t do 2 launches per mission… Too expensive they said… Well a three crew Orion will not come to be. Too late. Too bad.
“I do not think that 100 workstations should be a human-rating requirement for launch vehicles.”
That may or may not be what you think, but it’s what you wrote. Here’s your exact language, for the second time:
“SpaceX launches rockets with a couple laptops in a van. Man rated Nasa programs have nearly 100 stations in the LCC monitoring launches.â€
Again, per your own language, based on a NASA/SpaceX comparison, you claim that a man-rated launcher should have about 100 workstations (or more than a couple), which isn’t a requirement in NASA’s human-rating requirements and would be a stupid requirement in any case.
“You clearly cannot comprehend a simple 3 word statement.”
I comprehend it, but your earlier statement doesn’t support it. Either admit that your earlier statement was in error or just don’t respond. But don’t tell me that you didn’t write what you wrote when it’s right there in black and white (or photons and electrons).
“I actually posted the links that I referred to”
Where? You never referred me to any links or references.
I’ve provided three references showing that Falcon 9 is designed to be human-rated, meets NASA’s written human-rating requirements with the exception of the launch escape system, and that NASA has cited Falcon 9’s safety features.
Where are your references showing that Falcon 9 is not, as you claim, human-rated?
Or your references showing that a non-existent Ares I is human-rated?
“And you, preaching about the way to talk to people on hear, check the mirror Jack because you are as rude as they come.”
I’m not the one who made statements like “sorry i have to dumb it down for ya…” first. If you want to be treated respectfully, then act respectfully.
“And because someone disagrees with you they are a troll?”
No, someone is a troll when they repeatedly, over multiple posts, fail to follow, read, and comprehend references and quotes provided by another poster.
“I did look up your links,”
Finally. Hallelujah. Good lord.
“none of them said that the vehicle was man rated,”
I never said it was. That’s your argument. Again, for the third time, I wrote:
“Falcon 9 was designed and developed from the start to be human-rated. For example, its structural margins meet NASA’s old human-rating requirements, before they were reduced for Ares I.â€
This is the third time I’ve repeated these words. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? Or are you a troll getting your jollies off frustrating other posters?
“only that some of it was or it was designed to be.”
Everything except for the launch escape system, if you had actually bothered to read and comprehend those references.
Cripes…
common sense, I never said Ares was man rated. Someone in an earlier post said that atlas/delta/and falcon were. Clearly, they are not, and many sites say that they will not even try to man rate the atlas/delta.
As far as falcon, all i read is that some parts are man rated. What does that mean though? 500 parts of a million? I have no idea, but clearly the whole thing is not. If it was SpaceX, Bolden, and others (many others) would be telling Congress and the world that SpaceX has a man rated vehicle RIGHT NOW ready to go and fly people to the ISS or wherever.
So, I’m just trying to ask the people on here who claim that it is man rated to specify where it is in the certification process. According to the claims made by many on here you would think it has checked all the boxes and IS CERTIFIED.
So, if that’s the case, then I just want to hear the answer.
If the answer is “I’m not sure” then how can you claim it has been certified as man-rated? I agree that “some part” is man rated.
If you read the article as the whole rocket is man rated we can agree to disagree. The article clearly states that other parts can be certified as the rocket is further designed. It does not say if that ever happened or how long it will take. I feel a fair statement is “some” of the Falcon has been man rated. Is it 5% or 50% I don’t know and I don’t think you know either. If you knew were they were in the process that would clear things up though.
I read through the certification process and to be honest it’s a ton of stuff but nowhere in the process does it talk about having a 1.4 safety factor (which the website and NASA speak of). My thinking is that the 1.4 safety factor is only one of the many criteria it takes to be man rated. It appears to me that just has to do with the strength that the vehicle is designed to (or the load it can withstand). From reading the site I posted I think there are dozens or hundreds of other criteria.
It doesn’t matter anyway, articles are coming out now that shuttle will probably be extended, constellation moved forward and commercial will also play some role. How it ends up I don’t know but it doesn’t sound like SpaceX is taking man anywhere anytime soon.
Major Tom,
The dumb it down statement was directed at someone else because those were the words they themself used first. You however, have made plenty of insulting remarks towards me about not knowing how to use a web browser, etc… Things that are clearly not part of our debate. So, let’s see if we can stay on topic. Peace out…
“If it was SpaceX, Bolden, and others (many others) would be telling Congress and the world that SpaceX has a man rated vehicle RIGHT NOW ready to go and fly people to the ISS or wherever.”
Talk about shortcuts! Man rated does not mean “ready to go”. Don’t you think test flights are in order? Especially with a brand new design? But it still can be man-rated. These are not mutually exclusive.
“So, I’m just trying to ask the people on here who claim that it is man rated to specify where it is in the certification process. According to the claims made by many on here you would think it has checked all the boxes and IS CERTIFIED. ”
I repeat the only way to know, since you do not trust SpaceX is to ask NASA directly. Not us bloggers. If I tell you it is and you don’t believe me what can I do? If I show you all the available public evidence and you don’t trust is what can I do? Go call C3PO and ask for yourself! Let me repeat this again: ““â€Falcon 9 continues to pass qualification testing in preparation for its first flight, scheduled for 2009,†said Elon Musk, CEO and CTO of SpaceX. “All hardware was designed to be man-rated, and these tests confirm that SpaceX is one step closer to flying humans on the Falcon 9/Dragon system.†— Not part of it, not half of it, BUT “All hardware was designed to be man-rated”. Major Tom poited to you several times that there will be a need for some escape system. Do you really believe that they will not get one? But what ddo you think the company’s priority is today? They have a CRS contract to honor. So first things firt: They must launch and hopefully without major incident. Not because incidents do not happen in this business, everyone knows that, but because there is a large crowd that is waiting for them to fail to cry wolf, and unfairly so. SpaceX has a lot more pressure to succeed than Ares/Orion ever had. But such is life.
“My thinking is that the 1.4 safety factor is only one of the many criteria it takes to be man rated. It appears to me that just has to do with the strength that the vehicle is designed to (or the load it can withstand). From reading the site I posted I think there are dozens or hundreds of other criteria. ”
Maybe so but do you expect the CEO to go and tell yyou that has been done. Yet the work was presented at a committee established to assess the work and you can read their findings. You may not like the findings but all the committee members are well regarded, experienced aerospace engineers/managers/astronauts. So if you want to disputee their findings you will need to collect better evidence than they had and go for it. There is no need if your serious about it to complain on this or any forum. Take action.
“It doesn’t matter anyway, articles are coming out now that shuttle will probably be extended, constellation moved forward and commercial will also play some role. How it ends up I don’t know but it doesn’t sound like SpaceX is taking man anywhere anytime soon.’
So you believe in such articles but not in NASA’s website. Goes to tell what your bias really is. Shuttle will not be extended, cannot be extended. Constellation will die and even if they manage to put it on ventilator it will die. It is not properly managed nor developed. It will die. You are free to beelieve otherwise but all pointers show it will die. As to what SpaceX is doing I suggest you ask SpaceX this time. Who said they actually “needed” NASA cash to go anywhere? What do you know about their plans? About their customers? SpaceX has been derided since its inception, yet they flew a small rocket to orbuit on shoestring budget. Today they have a full blown launcher on the pad at the Cape. If they manage well they WILL MAKE IT with F9. Once it is done they will put a Dragon there. Then they will man-rate Dragon/F9 in whatever way they like if NASA does not play along. Fine. And sometime not much later NASA HSF will die. And that will be it. Now of course there may be additional players but no one, no one, is as close to making it as SpaceX is today. And that I believee, I don’t know for sure.
We can agree/disagree all we want about the man rating, that’s fine.
Congress is going to stand firm with the POR/shuttle in a way that it gets the majority of the budget, not commercial companies. The name may change but NASA will continue with HSF whether it is Ares or otherwise, Orion or otherwise, etc…
I’m sure we disagree there too and neither one of us has any proof of how it will go down but Congress controls the money and it seems they are in control now. If last weeks hearings are what the future holds, it’s not commercial, at least not for a while….And if Ares or the government rocket becomes successful in the time SpaceX does, then I believe Congress will always stick with the government program over commercial.
“Congress is going to stand firm with the POR/shuttle in a way that it gets the majority of the budget, not commercial companies. The name may change but NASA will continue with HSF whether it is Ares or otherwise, Orion or otherwise, etc…”
Yep we disagree. We’ll know “soon” I assume. I am not sure why you are so hell bent on keeping Shuttle and Ares/Orion but it’s your choice. The problem is that the train already left the station and it is not going to the Moon with the POR (a letter away from pork btw).
Good luck to you!
I’m not for keeping the shuttle so that’s not my choice but what may happen. I think keeping constellation (or alot of the pieces) (or keeping it and changing the name) is more likely. But who knows…
Were did MT go? Maybe since I wanted to have discussion with no insults he chose not to come back. I see he’s been on a few other posts today calling people goofy and using his deragatory Duh comments but I guess that’s where he’s most comfortable. LOL
A lot of this discussion has begun to revolve around who knows what instead of the topic at hand. What is the SOLID argument for “man rating” anything nowadays? Seems a lot more risk and cost for marginal benefit, considering anything that can’t be accomplished by machines should be retrieved and tested here? Am I way off on this?