“The pusher abort system is the dumbest idea I have heard.”

You do realize that the Orion LAS is 6,176 kg (13,615 lb) of non-value added mass, mass that has to be launched but does not contribute to the function of the capsule?

That wasted mass was 24% of the max. Ares I payload at lift-off, and 31% of the max. ATK Liberty rocket payload at lift-off.

And you don’t see that as a waste? Selective, aren’t we?

Yeah, I was wondering about that today. Clearly there are people in NASA smart enough to see what a farrago/grotesque the current situation is. So do they have a plan for getting something worthwhile out of it (I can’t imagine what that would be) or have they just thrown up their hands and decided that they’re in it for the paychecks?

> but decisionmakers, the human space flight program, taxpayers, and NASA and contractor employees deserve much, much better.

Would that were to happen.

A “review” and a “perspective” are far from a complete definition of what NASA considers the current “human rating standards”.

NASA has stated on many occasions that it doesn’t have a compete standard, and has stated they they owe one for potential commercial providers.

When they will provide it, and what it calls out for beyond what industry has already been contemplating, is the big unknown.

Try and keep up with the issues…

Have you ever heard the phrase drill baby drill? Or the term oil shale or tar sands? Coal gasification and gas to liquid?

“Not really. NASA doesn’t even have a complete definition of what “human rated” means.”

Hmmm.

Definition of Terms for Reliability and … C.12 “A Review of Man Rating in Past and Current Manned Space Flight Programs,” … C.14 “A Perspective on the Human Rating Process of Spacecraft: Both Past and …
nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov

When people used that term just a few years ago, they too were called insane just for calling it out like that. Constellation. It’s insane. You can’t kill it.

It has no brain.

“But that would remove one of the most effective tools for the NASA traditionalist in refuting newspace.”

Not really. NASA doesn’t even have a complete definition of what “human rated” means. It’s a real concept, but it doesn’t exist in the real world. They didn’t even have a definitive definition for the Shuttle program, since they kept changing their assumptions about what was safe. We all know how that has worked out so far.

Even “old space” companies don’t know what it means, so right now it’s just a punching bag issue for whoever wants to use it (like you).

“They would prefer to bypass the burden of compliance. What aerospace manufacturer wouldn’t?”

What business wouldn’t want the freedom to address their market the way they want to?

Businesses usually accept regulation where it creates a level playing field, and where it can reduce liability. Such is the case with “human rating” standards, since Boeing, Lockheed Martin, SpaceX, Blue Origin and others would like to build spacecraft, but NASA (or whoever) hasn’t published a complete set of specifications for everyone to use if they want government business.

There is no level playing field, either for newspace or oldspace.

“I will go on using it where the term applies.”

You can’t even define it using official definitions! Of course that hasn’t stopped you from making stuff up in the past…

“Why on earth carry the weight penalty of fuel and engines to orbit and then all the way to the ground when you only really need them for the first 3 minutes of flight?”

1) Because an integral LAS eliminates the need to separate the LAS from the capsule and the risks that separations and failed separations entail.

2) Because a typical launch sequence takes ten minutes and the ability to add significant dV to capsule in the event of an abort after the first three minutes is desirable.

3) Because an integrated LAS can double as in-space thrusters for attitude control and maneuvering.

4) Because an integrated LAS can double as retro-thrusters for non-water and/or precision landings on Earth.

5) Because an integrated LAS can double as retro-thrusters for planetary landings.

6) Because it represents a cost advantage for reusable spacecraft.

1) Because an integral LAS eliminates the need to separate the LAS from the capsule and the risks that separations and failed separations entail.

2) Because a typical launch sequence takes ten minutes and the ability to add significant dV to capsule in the event of an abort after the first three minutes is desirable.

3) Because an integrated LAS can double as in-space thrusters for attitude control and maneuvering.

4) Because an integrated LAS can double as retro-thrusters for non-water and/or precision landings on Earth.

5) Because an integrated LAS can double as retro-thrusters for planetary landings.

“Also, an aborting spacecraft is negatively stable so the thrust on the pusher system has to be vectorable too.”

Have you been paying attention at all to what’s been happening at Armadillo, Blue Origin, and Masten?

You do realize that JSC is now using Armadillo landers, right?

“I laugh when pusher supporters talk about using it for landing. If you really had to to the job, small solid landing rockets would suffice.”

Yes, that’s why you saw all those solid motors in the retro-thrusters for the LEM.

[rolls eyes]

“How ’bout landing 5 miles off of the coast of the Cape in the water? Isn’t that a lot simpler than landing in Utah with a heavier, more complex system.”

Not if you have to rent the Navy to come fish you out.

C’mon, think, just a little, before you post.

“The pusher abort system is the dumbest idea I have heard… What a hack… Many people on this forum seem to gravitate to quixotic engineering solutions for their own sake.”

You should take up those ad hominem insults with Mike Griffin. The concept was mostly his, after all:

nasaspaceflight.com/2007/12/mlas-the-alternative-orion-launch-abort-system-gains-momentum/

Oy vey…

The pusher abort system is the dumbest idea I have heard. Why on earth carry the weight penalty of fuel and engines to orbit and then all the way to the ground when you only really need them for the first 3 minutes of flight?

Is carrying your Earth to LEO – LEO to Earth capsule all the way to the moon/asteroids/Mars a dumb idea also?