Apology not accepted. I stated unbiased fact from my on-the-job experience and the Transportation Office’s own public reports and you blithely dismiss it as “advertising” and boasting. Your advocacy is interfering with your ability to make rational judgments.

Your point?

The fact remains that Dragon has flown a boilerplate test article in orbit while no element of Orion has been tested in space, orbitally or suborbitally. And the fact remains that Dragon will fly a functional test article later this year while there is no Orion test flight on the horizon.

It’s goofy to get hung up on a lousy crew escape system when it remains to be seen if the Orion capsule itself can or will ever make it to orbit. (Cripes, Orion doesn’t even know what launch vehicle it’s on anymore.)

Put another way, there’s no point to building an air bag system when you don’t even have a car design that closes.

Duh…

“That would make it a dummy capsule… A boilerplate Dragon is a dummy capsule.”

If you had even a rudimentary grasp of aerospace engineering terminology, you’d know that a dummy test article and a boilerplate test article are not the same thing.

A “dummy” capsule is just a mass simulator, i.e., lead weights, for the launch vehicle. It lacks any of the structure, subsystems, or other hardware that would be used on the actual, operational capsule, and provides no test of their clearances, loads, handling, or other performance characteristics.

A “boilerplate” capsule is a structural simulator that tests the actual clearances, loads, and handling of the actual, operational structure for the capsule, in addition to being a mass simulator for the launch vehicle

Ares I-X carried a dummy mass in place of Orion that provided no test of Orion.

The Falcon 9 flight performed a boilerplate test of Dragon that tested Dragon’s clearances, loads, etc.

Before wasting other posters’ time with stupid claims, learn some basic aerospace engineering terminology. There’s even an article on what a “boilerplate” test article is on wikipedia, for crissakes.

“Orion is being put together”

No, it’s not. Ground test and some very low altitude test articles are being built. Unlike Dragon, the Orion program is building no actual orbital test articles or vehicles yet.

“it is built like a tank”

No, it’s not. Due to Ares I underperformance, Orion is largely a single-string vehicle. It lacks most of the redundant systems found on Dragon and every other human space flight vehicle.

“The escape system- two different ones”

The fact that the program is going to the expense of developing two different escape systems because USAF and other analysis shows that at least one of these systems will likely kill the crew in the event of an abort should tell you something.

Think before you post.

“That study is a red herring”

The study is what it is. It’s an unbiased study performed by an independent federal technical authority (the Air Force), and it shows that the Orion LAS is likely to incinerate Orion’s parachute, precipitating a fall from altitude that would kill the crew in the event of a launch abort.

“and is used as often as the CAIB by SpaceX sycophants.”

Who, specifically, are these SpaceX “sycophants” who often use the CAIB (another independent federal technical authority) and the Air Force report? Names and references?

And even if these “sycophants” regularly refer to these reports, how does that invalidate the evidence and findings from these reports?

“No one is falling for your ‘likely’ fox news qualifier.”

It’s not a “qualifier”. It’s a statement of fact. The USAF range analysis showed that the Orion LAS would be more likely than not to kill the crew in the event of a launch abort.

“The shuttle is an HLV- it’s heavy lift is the orbiter.”

The orbiter puts less than 25mT in LEO. That’s not an HLV. It’s equivalent to the performance of an existing EELV.

“Not man-rated, just like I said. And the Falcon 9 has flown….one time.

Your point?

Neither Orion nor Ares I nor any other SDHLV have flown orbitally. The EELVs are years ahead of Ares I or any other SDHLV in terms of flights. A boilerplate Dragon has flown, putting it well ahead of Orion, which has no orbital test flights scheduled and doesn’t even know what its launch vehicle is anymore.

Neither Orion nor Ares I nor any other SDHLV are man-rated. An operational Falcon 9 has flown and it meets all of NASA’s existing human-rating requirements, putting it well ahead of Ares I or any other SDHLV in terms of human rating. An operational Dragon will fly later this year, and it’s designed to meet all of NASA’s existing human-rating requirements, which will put it well ahead of Orion in terms of human rating.

“dont’ make stupid ignorant technobabble statements and expect people to believe them.

Dont’ make stupid ignorant technobabble statements and expect people to believe them.

Dont’ make stupid ignorant technobabble statements and expect people to believe them.

Dont’ make stupid ignorant technobabble statements and expect people to believe them.

Dont’ make stupid ignorant technobabble statements and expect people to believe them.”

Don’t repeat the same ignorant excuse over and over just because you have no understanding of basic aerospace engineering concepts and terminology.

Stupidity is not an excuse.

Learn something, anything, about the topics you’re addressing before you post again.

“Gee whiz Tom, your arrogance is unbelievable.”

I’ll take halfway competent arrogance over unadulterated idiotic assinine ignorance, any day.

Sigh…

Sidemount is a useless monstrosity that NASA ought to be ashame they showed it especially for a crewed vehicle with a LAS. The whole SDV concept is total nonsense, a awfully expensive waste of money.

Oh well…

I disagree with that.”

You don’t have the knowledge or experience to agree or disagree.

This is a fact, sidemount has so many changes from the shuttle that existing reliability estimates are not applicable and new ones will have to be generated. The same flawed reasoning stated that the 5 segment SRB had the same numbers as the 4 segment, which again was not true.

1. Dragon is going to fly in a few months with a parachute system, a maneuvering system, ARAD systems, simple ECS, etc. Orion is still a hunk of test weld structure. Orion has no launch vehicle yet. Any response you make will fail to prove Orion is ahead

2. The shuttle is an HLV- it’s heavy lift is the orbiter. Which is meaningless. The payload carrying element which has the engines and avionics is a brand new development and has not flown. Sidemount HLV is unproven until it flies.

3. ““And which, per USAF analysis, would likely kill the crew in the event of a flight abort.”

It is not a lie and it is the truth. Only a CxP toady would ignore this.

4. Not man-rated,neither is the shuttle or Soyuz. Also, neither is Ares I or Sidemount. Do you know what manrating is? Nobody has at NASA has signed off on these vehicles as manrated at this time and wouldn’t be until late in the development cycle. So any assessment, modification and certification of “manrating” of Delta IV, Atlas V or Falcon 9 can happen long before Ares I or Sidemount. Hence your argument is meaningless.

You are the guys talking about Ares, not me. I am talking about Sidemount.
As for the SRB study, if any spacecraft explodes it forms an expanding debri cloud. The same criticisms hold true for any rocket, liquid or solid. The red herring is that a liquid rocket can shut it’s engine down and make everything wonderful; if it blows up it blows up even more violently than solid fuel. The study lowers the probability of survival in the first part of the flight- the part when Challenger exploded and their is evidence that 3 of the crew survived and rode the cabin down to impact. Orion is far more survivable than Challenger.

“Even using available Shuttle hardware, the sidemount would be substantially different enough that you could not honestly use Shuttle reliability estimates.”

I disagree with that. How little do you have change to “honestly” use the same estimates? The fragile and troubled orbiter is replaced by a capsule built like a tank and encased in a pod and LAS shield.

The rest of your post is SpaceX advertising and credential boast. Sorry Justin.

With regards to the USAF analysis, you need to demonstrate how it is wrong or irrelevant. Claiming that it’s a red herring and calling anyone who cites it a sycophant is not a logical argument.

As for Dragon itself, the Transportation Office has confirmed that SpaceX is meeting all of their ground testing milestones and they have tested the DragonEye docking system on a Shuttle flight. SpaceX is building the operational cargo vehicles as we speak and has even done a cargo packing test under NASA supervision.

Here in the Payloads Office, we’re planning for cargo delivery and return next year. Orion isn’t even on our radar, as it was not expected to be ready any earlier than 2017. Again, I’m inclined to agree with Tom about the operational use of Dragon.

While you are technically correct about the Orbiter, I think it’s clear that Tom was talking about the dedicated cargo vehicle. Even using available Shuttle hardware, the sidemount would be substantially different enough that you could not honestly use Shuttle reliability estimates. That’s the same problem Ares I ran into.

The Dragon cargo vehicle has to meet ISS requirements for crew safety and operations just to dock. The actual crew capsule is a logical progression from there.

“Operational hardware for a launch vehicle is a functioning second stage and first stage, both of which are identical to the operational flight design.”

Well, it flew once, but the capsule that is supposed to carry people, and has yet to demonstrate an escape system, a parachute system, a maneuvering system…..etc. That would make it a dummy capsule, just like I said.
dont’ make stupid ignorant technobabble statements and expect people to believe them.

“And which, per USAF analysis, would likely kill the crew in the event of a flight abort.”
That is another technobabble lie. That study is a red herring and is used as often as the CAIB by SpaceX sycophants. No one is falling for your “likely” fox news qualifier.
Dont’ make stupid ignorant technobabble statements and expect people to believe them.

Orion is much closer to operational use than Dragon in my opinion.
“Your “opinion” is factually wrong.
A boilerplate Dragon flew earlier this year and an operational Dragon is going up on the next Falcon 9 flight late this year.
Orion hasn’t done a boilerplate flight and is years away from its first operational flight.”

A boilerplate Dragon is a dummy capsule. It was put on cluster’s last stand for weight and tested no mythical dragon systems. Orion is being put together for anyone to see on NASA TV and it is built like a tank; for crew survivability. The escape system- two different ones, have been tested, and so has the parachute system; there is no way SpaceX is going to catch up to that.
Dont’ make stupid ignorant technobabble statements and expect people to believe them.

“A sidemount HLV has never been developed, nevertheless flown. That’s not proven or existing.”

The shuttle is an HLV- it’s heavy lift is the orbiter. Dont’ make stupid ignorant technobabble statements and expect people to believe them.

“Atlas V, Delta IV, and Falcon 9 have all flown, in some cases a couple dozen times. That’s proven and existing.”
Falcon 9 meets all of NASA’s existing human-rating requirements.”

Not man-rated, just like I said. And the Falcon 9 has flown….one time. It may be man-rated but the capsule carries the people- and it is a cheap mock up so far. Dont’ make stupid ignorant technobabble statements and expect people to believe them.

Gee whiz Tom, your arrogance is unbelievable.

Griffin could have done what the VSE instructed him to do, which is to acquire commercial services for crew transportation. Instead, he disregarded that, just like many other VSE instructions, and chose to waste piles of money on government launchers that would not work with the given schedule and budget, if at all. Thus, we now have no alternative to Soyuz. Orion and Ares are the reason we have to rely on the Soyuz, since they were doomed from the start to fail and since they took funds from options that would have worked.

“If a continuation of the shuttle program were to commence, we would not need the Russians.”

Even with the Shuttle continued, we would still rely on the Soyuz, since the Shuttle doesn’t provide crew return capability at the ISS except when it’s there. We rely on the Soyuz right now. Not only that, but the Shuttle is dangerous, and it costs so much money that we will not be able to do much else with HSF while operating the Shuttle (especially if we’re also operating ISS and inventing another HLV/Orion funding black hole like Constellation).

The Shuttle won’t reduce our reliance on the Soyuz because of crew return requirements, and it prevents us from funding alteratives that would reduce our reliance on the Soyuz. Ares I/Orion didn’t reduce our reliance on the Soyuz because they were unaffordable. The new HLV and Orion will not reduce our reliance on the Soyuz because all indications from Congress are that they are mandated to be unaffordable.

To reduce our reliance on the Soyuz, we need some form of affordable crew transportation and rescue capability or capabilities that can actually work in a relevant amount of time. COTS-like Commercial crew gives numerous possibilities for doing this. There are also other potential paths that involve NASA human-rating EELVs.