Here’s a summary and link to the presentation.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=31792

“but if it was done for the Ares I that is a very different stack than either an In Line or Side Mount SDHLV and would not be applicable to this discussion”

Those are all different stacks, but the fundamental problem — that solid rocket propellant continues to burn after deflagration and poses a radiant heating danger to capsule parachutes — is the same as long as those stacks use SRBs.

“… the Apollo/Saturn hardware would have been ‘incrementally evolved’ to support space operations.”

I’m all for incremental evolution when the technical base is affordable, sustainable, and reliable. The Apollo systems didn’t meet the first two criteria once the Soviet N-1 effort collapsed, and probably wouldn’t have met the third criterion given a handful more flights.

“Now that the SD hardware is available to be similarly ‘incrementally evolved'”

The Shuttle technical base doesn’t meet these criteria, either.

Shuttle has wasted NASA’s human space flight budget on ETO transport for decades now, leaving practically nothing for BEO activities and limiting the LEO destination (ISS) to a budget that’s half that its transportation (STS). It’s like spending double your mortgage or rent each year on gas for your commute.

Ares I/Orion was going to be a $35-40 billion development effort, vice the two EELV families, which the taxpayer got for $1 billion development investment, or Falcon 9/Dragon (unmanned), which the taxpayer received for $278 million.

Now we’re being sold a congressionally designed SDHLV that NASA prices somewhere north of $16 billion, when we could put fault detection and gantries on Delta IVs to loft Orion for hundreds of millions of dollars.

When is this insanity going to end? We’re spending billions more on transportation vice destination and tens of billions more than what other space sectors spend for equivalent capabilities. And for what? A system crippled by safety concerns because it has no LES (STS) or will kill crews regardless of the LES (see USAF analysis above)?

“That is according to NASA Headquarters.”

Not to be snide, but what higher technical authority do you want to appeal to?

God?

“I really wish that fight did not have to happen because I fear the outcome is going to very damaging for everyone (except those who want there to be no American based Space Program at all).”

We can have an “American-based”, even a “NASA-based”, human space flight program without Shuttle or Constellation vehicles.

“Per the above I simply so not accept your assertion that ‘crews will be safer on those existing vehicles’. For one thing a crew rated EELV is not an ‘existing vehicle’.”

You’re right that there is no crew-rated EELV today. But adding a fault detection system, some pad gantries, and an LES to an existing ELV/capsule is a much simpler and much less expensive development than creating an entirely new LV stack (Ares I, sidemount, inline, etc.) out of Shuttle components that were not originally designed to fly in such a configuration. That’s even more true when the ELVs will have (or already do have) dozens of flights behind them before the first flight of that new Shuttle-derived LV stack.

FWIW…

“I am not familiar with “the Air Force Analysis” you refer to, but if it was done for the Ares I that is a very different stack than either an In Line or Side Mount SDHLV and would not be applicable to this discussion”

Oh well, you are not familiar with the AF analysis yet you know for sure it is not applicable?

I wonder what it is you actually do in this business.

“er the Air Force analysis, there are whole minutes during the ascent when there is practically zero chance of a survivable abort.”

You would also have to consider a pad abort as really non trivial. You have several mode of failures with SRBs AND LH2-LOX. A burning SRB might detonate the main tank which in turn might – I don’t know for sure – detonate the other SRB. A detonation would most likely annihilate the capsule. Unless you know ahead of time it is going to happen there is no way to escape it. In any case it does indeed beg the question for the necessity of an actual LAS for such vehicle. I strongly believe that a LAS actually increases risk in that case for several reasons that I said above and those you state as well.

An SDLV with a LAS inline (a la Ares V) would be very difficult to make work properly with even greater difficulty than an Ares I vehicle.

A sidemount SDLV with a LAS might be even worse on the whole range of flight from pad to LAS jettison if the purpose is to recover the crew well… alive.

We do not need a SD anything. We will not get a SD anything. Because on top of the technical difficulty they are well… too expensive!

The point I think you are missing is that the same is true for any crew vehicle design whether it is launched on an SDHLV or an EELV. The Shuttle (1 in 90) number already covers that for the Orbiter (which is bigger and more fragile than any capsule design will be – and thus is a “bigger target”); the EELV (1 in 50) number does not cover such exposure at all (it covers only payload delivery to orbit). Therefore to have an “apples to apples” comparison you would have to set the end point of the risk analysis at the same point. If that endpoint is delivery of payload to orbit, then I still say a (1 in 100) number is extremely conservative for an SDHLV.

“Nevertheless, let’s assume (again hypothetically) that abort from any SDHLV is more difficult than for an EELV. The generally used reliability number for an abort system is 90% (1 in 10). Let’s grant that figure to EELV and only give SDHLV half that 80% (1 in 5).”
“It’s much worse than that for SDHLV. Even assuming an inline design (and setting aside the engineering nightmare of trying to get off a sidemount stack safely), per the Air Force analysis, there are whole minutes during the ascent when there is practically zero chance of a survivable abort. On top of that, to have a shot at getting away from the SRBs during the rest of the ascent profile, the LES on an SDHLV has to be much bigger and more complex — and thus less reliable — than the LES for an all-liquid stack.
As a result of the above, the Ares I/Orion LES was looking at about 50% (1-in-2). At that point, it begs the question of why even have an LES. If it’s a coin toss as to whether the LES is going to save or kill the crew, then you’re better off without it.”

I am not familiar with “the Air Force Analysis” you refer to, but if it was done for the Ares I that is a very different stack than either an In Line or Side Mount SDHLV and would not be applicable to this discussion

““Those are ‘sunk costs’ as is the money already spent developing the EELVs.
Fair enough. We can’t revisit history, but I sure wish we could in the case of Shuttle.”

So do I, give me a time machine and the ability to run the circa 1970 United States and the Apollo/Saturn hardware would have been “incrementally evolved” to support space operations. Instead we “threw it away” and went chasing the “bold, innovative, game hanging, paradigm shifting” technology of its day (the Space Shuttle). Now that the SD hardware is available to be similarly “incrementally evolved” we are in the process of making the same mistake again

““The cost estimates for SDHLV are well lower than ‘tens of billions of dollars’”
Not so far according to NASA:
“The authorization act gives NASA until 2016 to field the heavy-lift rocket and crew vehicle, and authorizes Congress to spend more than $10 billion on the two projects over the next three years” but “NASA’s Jan. 10 interim report states that ‘neither Reference Vehicle Design currently fits the projected budget profiles nor schedule goals outlined’ in the law”.”

That is according to NASA Headquarters. One of the discussions, likely to be “interesting” in the coming congressional hearings is why NASA HQ failed to provide the “supporting data” (the field center technical work that was input to the NASA HQ generated report) Congress had requested. I really wish that fight did not have to happen because I fear the outcome is going to very damaging for everyone (except those who want there to be no American based Space Program at all).

“Even if SDHLV cost the same as EELVs or Falcon 9, why spend taxpayer money duplicating a capability? Especially when crews will be safer on those existing vehicles?”

Per the above I simply so not accept your assertion that “crews will be safer on those existing vehicles”. For one thing a crew rated EELV is not an “existing vehicle”.

At any rate, as you say: “FWIW…”

Regardless, it’s manned space flight and astronaut risks that we’re talking about, not satellites. That means we have to include aborts in our consideration.

“Micrometeorite or orbital debris strikes orbiter, leading to loss of vehicle in orbit or on re-entry… Crew error during re-entry.”

These are risks on any manned mission. They’re not unique to Shuttle.

“Without knowing all of the factors driving the Shuttle number, you cannot say how much higher it would be for an SDHLV (without the Orbiter reentry/landing components)”

It’s not going to be much different from Shuttle, since whatever capsule the SDHLV is throwing is still subject to those debris and crew error risks.

“Nevertheless, let’s assume (again hypothetically) that abort from any SDHLV is more difficult than for an EELV. The generally used reliability number for an abort system is 90% (1 in 10). Let’s grant that figure to EELV and only give SDHLV half that 80% (1 in 5).”

It’s much worse than that for SDHLV. Even assuming an inline design (and setting aside the engineering nightmare of trying to get off a sidemount stack safely), per the Air Force analysis, there are whole minutes during the ascent when there is practically zero chance of a survivable abort. On top of that, to have a shot at getting away from the SRBs during the rest of the ascent profile, the LES on an SDHLV has to be much bigger and more complex — and thus less reliable — than the LES for an all-liquid stack.

As a result of the above, the Ares I/Orion LES was looking at about 50% (1-in-2). At that point, it begs the question of why even have an LES. If it’s a coin toss as to whether the LES is going to save or kill the crew, then you’re better off without it.

“Those are ‘sunk costs’ as is the money already spent developing the EELVs.

Fair enough. We can’t revisit history, but I sure wish we could in the case of Shuttle.

“The cost estimates for SDHLV are well lower than ‘tens of billions of dollars'”

Not so far according to NASA:

“The authorization act gives NASA until 2016 to field the heavy-lift rocket and crew vehicle, and authorizes Congress to spend more than $10 billion on the two projects over the next three years” but “NASA’s Jan. 10 interim report states that ‘neither Reference Vehicle Design currently fits the projected budget profiles nor schedule goals outlined’ in the law”.

http://spacenews.com/civil/110111-nasa-heavy-lift-proposal.html

And Ares I/Orion alone was pushing $35-40 billion before termination.

Even if SDHLV cost the same as EELVs or Falcon 9, why spend taxpayer money duplicating a capability? Especially when crews will be safer on those existing vehicles?

“and the cost for fielding crew rated EELVs would not be zero.

No, but they’re measured in the hundreds of millions to low billions of dollars, not $10-20 billion plus.

FWIW…

Based on their past tendency to be a money sponge, I’m no big ATK fan. But if they had a viable economically competitive rocket sitting on the pad ready to launch right now, I would be glued to the video coverage and rooting for their success because it would be to the advantage of the USA’s future in space. Whether you like them or not, if your priorities weren’t so screwed up, you would have that same attitude about SpaceX’s next launch instead of keeping your fingers crossed for their failure. What is in the best interests of your country should come before petty puerile fanboism. You are truly warped.

“Actually that is incorrect. I can (and do) live without you very well.”

It does not look like it since you keep coming at me. And beside my unfathomable charm I wonder what makes you think of me so much. Could I be right?

Now as your usual self, you state things without reference: Such as I said it was “impossible” to abort from side-mount or that there is some analysis showing you can actually safely abort… Anyway.

You know what might work is to find someone, an expert, – not me of course – that could actually explain to you what needs to be done for a rigorous abort analysis. An analysis that would include proximity aero and 6-DOF at various point on ascent at different angles of attack that include on-pad, max-Q, max-alpha-Q, max-alpha, max-Mach, max-heating to name a few. With such a configuration you may need max side slip as well since the vehicle is not symmetric. LAS release analysis and re-contact. Re-contact with burning solids. Etc etc. Aerothermal analysis of plume impingement would have to be done with the actual vehicle with all systems and TPS. The LAS would have to be sized for the associated ascent trajectory. I’ll grant you that it may have been done already and that I am just ignorant. But until I see the analysis and that it shows it can be done I’ll say that there is a high risk of killing the crew… on abort from side-mount.

And the preliminary analysis you linked to just does not cut it.

Oh well…

Nothing on earth except soyuz has a longer flight heritage than the ATK and Astrium hardware.

None of the components have ever flown in the proposed configuration, so I’m not sure where you see “flight heritage”.

That is why it is going to be the next soyuz and the launcher of choice for the next half century.

I find that hard to believe as it has none of the economic advantages or versatility that Soyuz offers.
The “next Soyuz” will be Soyuz with some upgrades, competing in a diversified market.

Falcon was lucky twice but I expect that cluster to blow up on the pad next time. I will keep my fingers crossed.

I think you will find your expectation unfounded.
Engineers don’t believe in luck, at SpaceX or anywhere.
Well okay, maybe at NASA and whoever builds the external tank for them (Lockheed, was it?).

Yes, I’m a SpaceX fan. But considering what they’ve accomplished thus far and the track record of every company before it that has tried it, I’d say there’s good reason to be one. That said, I’m really more of a commercial space fan, andI’m excited to see the other players in the field. But for one, no one else has yet launched anything, so it’s just hard to get enthused about them. Also discouraging for those of us that are commercial fans, the rest of the players in the field are far more tight-lipped about progress. It’s business prudence, I understand, and I don’t blame them. But it’s hard to get excited about news you never get.

My issue is not that I feel SpaceX is the one-and-only option, I don’t. Heck, they may not even be the best option. My issue is that people pan them as an inevitable failure (why? I don’t know, perhaps because it’s a day that ends in ‘y’), or tout another system as a shoe-in over some perceived inferiority SpaceX has that I’ve never seen anyone actually prove. That annoys me. So I respond to it.

Than ATK and Astrium hardware? Sure. But not in the configuration they plan. A 5 segment SRB has never flown, and the Astrium hardware has never played the role it’s playing in this new design. I’m sure it will fly. At least I very much hope it does. But to say this brand new rocket can ride in on the flight heritage of its components is simply incorrect. It certainly helps, but a lot of reliable components do not constitute a reliable rocket.

F9/Dragon will have been flying successfully in substantially the same configuration, save for improvements from lessons learned, for that entire period.