Launch News Orion EFT-1 Update thread

[orb]

 

[orb]

NASASpaceflight: Heat Shield for EFT-1 Orion arrives at KSC

 

[Kyle]

The Delta IV Heavy for this mission is being shipped!

 

[Kyle]

Now arrived in Florida.

 

[DaveS]

That's only the starboard and center CBCs. The port CBC and 5m DCSS will be delivered from Decatur to CCAFS in April.

 

[DanM]

It's great to see US space plans finally materializing. It's been quite a while.

 

[Kyle]

Via NASA Facebook.

Boosters for Orion Spacecraft's First Flight Test Arrive at Port Canaveral, Florida - A barge arrives at the U.S. Army Outpost wharf at Port Canaveral in Florida, carrying two of the three United Launch Alliance Delta IV heavy boosters for NASA’s upcoming Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1) with the Orion spacecraft. The core booster and starboard booster will be offloaded and then transported to the Horizontal Integration Facility, or HIF, at Space Launch Complex 37 on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. The port booster and the upper stage are planned to be shipped to Cape Canaveral in April. At the HIF, all three boosters will be processed and checked out before being moved to the nearby launch pad and hoisted into position.

Orion is the exploration spacecraft designed to carry astronauts to destinations in deep space, including an asteroid and Mars.

Image Credit: NASA

 

[Kyle]

Delayed until December 4th, 2014. Delay is unrelated to the Orion, instead it's related to the launch manifest having been pushed around.

 

[N_Molson]

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 ! :facepalm:

 

[Codz]

:facepalm: indeed...

 

[ISProgram]

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 ! :facepalm:

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...

:chainsaw:

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

....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.....

 

[Hlynkacg]

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.

 

[ISProgram]

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...

 

[Hlynkacg]

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. :lol:

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

 

[ISProgram]

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. :lol:

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. :lol:

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_09 - EELV Considerations c Aerospace HSF.pdf
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/HumanRatingAtlasVandDeltaIV.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/377875main_081109 Human Rated Delta IV.pdf

 

[orbitingpluto]

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.

 

[Hlynkacg]

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.

 

[Codz]

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.

 

[kamaz]

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.