Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Spaceflight News
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Spaceflight News Share news, stories, or discussions about government and private spaceflight programs; including ESA, ISS, NASA, Russian Space Program, Virgin Galactic, & more!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-15-2014, 06:07 PM   #91
ISProgram
SketchUp Orbinaut
 
ISProgram's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N_Molson View Post
 The first test flight of NASA's Orion crew exploration vehicle has been delayed to early December to accommodate a U.S. military payload in United Launch Alliance's Delta 4 launch manifest, officials announced late Friday.

Man, please stop with those heavy military satellites... There's not even a small window for civilian payloads !
I know, right?

But apparently military payloads have a higher priority then spaceflight payloads because they're more of a "essential" service (cough*government shutdown*cough).

Below is a accurate representation of how I feel about the (arguably) top spaceflight event of the year being delayed by a military satellite...

ISProgram is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 03-15-2014, 09:20 PM   #92
Galactic Penguin SST
Geek Penguin in GTO
 
Galactic Penguin SST's Avatar

Default

....the military satellite(s) in question is this one - back when the last GPS satellite was scheduled to fly last October it was going to fly in February. Now it will have to wait until the next GPS satellite clears the pad (currently tracking May 15) for it to launch (looks like somewhere in late July-early August). Add about 4 months after that for processing a DIVH and you got early December.....

It's ironic that the Delta IV launch schedule is "full" with only 4 launches for the year, but.....
Galactic Penguin SST is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2014, 02:34 AM   #93
Hlynkacg
Aspiring rocket scientist
 
Hlynkacg's Avatar


Default

You do realize that the GPS is a us military program dont you?

Likewise this further illustrates just how stupid the whole concept "man rating" is. If the Delta is reliable enough to be entrusted with a 1.5 Billion dollar strategic asset, its reliable enough to strap an astronaut to.
Hlynkacg is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 03-16-2014, 04:41 AM   #94
ISProgram
SketchUp Orbinaut
 
ISProgram's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hlynkacg View Post
 You do realize that the GPS is a us military program dont you?

Likewise this further illustrates just how stupid the whole concept "man rating" is. If the Delta is reliable enough to be entrusted with a 1.5 Billion dollar strategic asset, its reliable enough to strap an astronaut to.
Oh, the Delta IV is reliable as hell, just like the Atlas V and (sarcastically) the Space Launch System. I think the issue with man rating was the flight ascent path (black zones) and the high fuel environment at liftoff (it catches on FIRE, for crying out loud)...

I wonder if this impending pushback of EFT-1 for the GSSAP launch was the entire reason they declassified it a few weeks ago in the first place...
ISProgram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2014, 06:22 AM   #95
Hlynkacg
Aspiring rocket scientist
 
Hlynkacg's Avatar


Default

Err no...

Man-rating is a cultural hold-over from the days when we were still using operational ICBMs as launch vehicles. If 1 in 10 ICBMs fails that's ok because you're going to be firing them in batches of 50 - 100 anyway. Not so much if you are going to strap a person or unique and expensive probe to it and fire it off on live TV.

Simply put none of what you cited matters because humans are just another form of payload and to say that you are less worried about loosing a 1,500,000,000,000 $ payload than you are about losing a crew implies that the crew is itself worth more than 1,500,000,000,000 $ to you.

If that really is the case we should keep Astronauts sequestered in padded underground vaults (where they'll be safe) rather than risking them on something as stupid and frivolous as space flight.

PS, of course it catches fire. ITS A GODDAMN ROCKET.

Last edited by Hlynkacg; 03-16-2014 at 06:34 AM.
Hlynkacg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2014, 01:06 PM   #96
ISProgram
SketchUp Orbinaut
 
ISProgram's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hlynkacg View Post
 Err no...

Man-rating is a cultural hold-over from the days when we were still using operational ICBMs as launch vehicles. If 1 in 10 ICBMs fails that's ok because you're going to be firing them in batches of 50 - 100 anyway. Not so much if you are going to strap a person or unique and expensive probe to it and fire it off on live TV.

Simply put none of what you cited matters because humans are just another form of payload and to say that you are less worried about loosing a 1,500,000,000,000 $ payload than you are about losing a crew implies that the crew is itself worth more than 1,500,000,000,000 $ to you.

If that really is the case we should keep Astronauts sequestered in padded underground vaults (where they'll be safe) rather than risking them on something as stupid and frivolous as space flight.

PS, of course it catches fire. ITS A GODDAMN ROCKET.
...Well, rockets don't actually catch fire...technically speaking...

As for that man rating, I know it's necessary (the SLS thing was just a joke). The safety of the crew is priceless. Of course they are worth more than 1,500,000,000,000 $ payload. Your second point is just as valid, I guess. Why risk a crew on a liquid fueled bomb. As for putting them in padded underground vaults, we've already been doing that, in one form or another. Or at least induce the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ISProgram View Post
 I think the issue with man rating was the flight ascent path (black zones) and the high fuel environment at liftoff (it catches on FIRE, for crying out loud)...
I was referring to the Delta IV when I wrote this. Particularly the Delta IV Heavy. I recall that the problem was apparent serious enough that they changed the ignition sequence for NROL-65. The catching on fire of the insulation, I mean.

As for that man rating...
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361836main_0...pace%20HSF.pdf
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/p...andDeltaIV.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/377875main_0...Delta%20IV.pdf
ISProgram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2014, 05:24 PM   #97
orbitingpluto
Orbiteer
Default

I've looked at the docs you linked to, and I don't see your point. ULA's document said that while the D-IV Heavy was in need of more work to make it single fault tolerant, they didn't state it was expensive or difficult to make those changes. There's a fault detection computer needing to be developed, and ground support stuff(crew access for example) too, but that wasn't presented as a challenge either. In general, the ULA doc adds fuel to the idea that man rating isn't a hard task in this case. The NASA funded study docs basically tossed out the idea of using D-IV Heavy as is, simply saying 'not human rated', and then went on to explore engine options and different second stages, mentioning again and again ways to increase commonality with Constellation hardware. The outright refusal to make use of the experience and common hardware of the current D-IV engines or existing second stage is a pretty baffling idea on the face of it, but once I remembered that protecting the workforce and contracts was a big part of Constellation's architecture, it made sense why they did that. That does mean this study started with biased assumptions, which means it's conclusions aren't useful to us; we're not hijacking D-IV Heavy to accommodate Constellation stuff, and it doesn't have much to say about using just a regular spec or minor upgrade of a D-IV heavy.

In my own opinion, I don't think there a big effort needed to man rate a EELV, at least nowhere near as needed as the ones for the Atlas I, Titan II, and Saturns of yore. There hasn't been as much hand wringing on an single issue today like Pogo was getting back then. At least, as far as I know.
orbitingpluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2014, 06:11 PM   #98
Hlynkacg
Aspiring rocket scientist
 
Hlynkacg's Avatar


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ISProgram View Post
 As for that man rating, I know it's necessary (the SLS thing was just a joke). The safety of the crew is priceless.
This is simply not true.

In fact it is obviously and dangerously wrong.

Are you really going to argue that a potential cure for MRSA is not worth risking the lives of 1 3 or even 7 astronauts. Think on it, what is 7 possible deaths weighed against 18,650?

When you say that the crew's life is priceless what you are really saying is that, as far as you are concerned, 1 astronaut's life is worth more than the collected lives of 2,664 normal people.

It's absurd.

Last edited by Hlynkacg; 03-16-2014 at 06:14 PM.
Hlynkacg is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 03-16-2014, 08:48 PM   #99
Codz
Lunar Advocate
 
Codz's Avatar
Default

Are you really trying to reduce people's lives to simple math? Of course some risks are worth taking, but I'm not sure such a cavalier attitude toward human life is warranted. Seems like it could potentially be used by some as an excuse for human vivisection, or human testing without consent. After all, both avenues could potentially save many lives in the long run, but are ethically indefensible.
Codz is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 03-16-2014, 10:03 PM   #100
kamaz
Unicorn hunter
 
kamaz's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hlynkacg View Post
 Are you really going to argue that a potential cure for MRSA is not worth risking the lives of 1 3 or even 7 astronauts.
It is not worth it, because there is no reason that such experiment must require a human operator. In fact, sending infectious agents to ISS goes against the common sense.

PS. I agree with your sentiment regarding man-rating D-IV in light of its operational history.
kamaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 03-16-2014, 10:03 PM   #101
Hlynkacg
Aspiring rocket scientist
 
Hlynkacg's Avatar


Default

Quote:
Are you really trying to reduce people's lives to simple math?
Yes, I am.

Without an objective method of cost/benefit analysis how the hell are we supposed to determine which risks are worth taking in the first place?

At the same time valuing life infinitely leads to equally absurd and evil conclusions.

An infinitely valuable human live would necessitate protection from anything that might shorten it. We barter risk to life and limb for experience all the time, so unless you’d also like to argue that greasy food, road trips, and skydiving are also of infinite value, enough so to be traded for with smidgens of human life, you need to "Shut up and multiply".

For craps sake, you're acting like the astronauts didn't volunteer for this.
Hlynkacg is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 03-16-2014, 11:01 PM   #102
ISProgram
SketchUp Orbinaut
 
ISProgram's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hlynkacg View Post
 ...For craps sake, you're acting like the astronauts didn't volunteer for this.
I'm going to regret saying this, but he does have a point...

I personally think that we are starting delving in topics that shouldn't be on this thread (ethics of human spaceflight,etc...). I'm not saying this because I hate this talk, but this is a Orion EFT-1 Update Thread and what we are currently talking about definitely does not relate to said flight. Of course, you can post whatever you want here, so long as you don't break any rules on the forums, so you don't have to listen to me...

Maybe a separate thread, perhaps? Just a suggestion.
ISProgram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 12:05 AM   #103
Hlynkacg
Aspiring rocket scientist
 
Hlynkacg's Avatar


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ISProgram View Post
 I personally think that we are starting delving in topics that shouldn't be on this thread...
Fair enough, I apologize for the thread-jack.

Hlynkacg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 12:30 AM   #104
ISProgram
SketchUp Orbinaut
 
ISProgram's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hlynkacg View Post
 Fair enough, I apologize for the thread-jack.

Thanks, though I think I started it all with this post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ISProgram View Post
 I know, right?

But apparently military payloads have a higher priority then spaceflight payloads because they're more of a "essential" service (cough*government shutdown*cough).

Below is a accurate representation of how I feel about the (arguably) top spaceflight event of the year being delayed by a military satellite...

Back to EFT-1. Does anyone know how this delay may affect pre-launch processing flow, the all-important Orion CDR, etc...? Basically, any possible repercussions of the delay.
ISProgram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2014, 12:45 PM   #105
Unstung
Orbinaut
 
Unstung's Avatar
Default




Source:
Universe Today: "NASA Unveils Orionís Powerful Delta IV Heavy Rocket Boosters for Dec. 2014 Blastoff"
Unstung is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Spaceflight News


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:04 PM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.