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!

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: ““”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.

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…

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.”

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.”

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…

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.

Ares I was not designed to take people to the moon.

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?