[Risk]

[Zvezdichko]

The first few posts (8 or so) of this thread were pulled from : http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....OGRESS-UPDATES
Some posts were borderline for moving here or staying there - if anyone feels strongly about a change, please make a report.
-----------

The current edition of the This Week In Space podcast http://spaceflightnow.com/twis/ has an interview with Elon Musk in which he summarizes the metrics of success of the launch as:

Bad - Explosion on the pad
Good - First stage works with failure afterwards
Great - Orbital velocity attained

I can't believe it. It's supposed to be a manned rocket! Remember that Saturn I and Saturn V didn't have any total failures (yes, some pogos on Saturn V, but nothing that would imply certain 100% death). STS-1 was a success either.

If Mr. Musk is serious about manned launches... then he should have strict criteria.

[Craigboy]

I can't believe it. It's supposed to be a manned rocket! Remember that Saturn I and Saturn V didn't have any total failures (yes, some pogos on Saturn V, but nothing that would imply certain 100% death). STS-1 was a success either.

If Mr. Musk is serious about manned launches... then he should have strict criteria.

Well I'd rather it fail while unmanned than with a crew and there will be 15 of these "test" flights.

IMO because we're on the brink of retiring a long-used and long-proven (though economically flawed) system and we're about to be without a demonstrable or proven system for a least a few years now and plans are up in the air about how things will go people are getting nervous. People are getting nervous and they're retreating into their personal space exploration prospect/program idea of choice because certainty in this unsure time feels better than just admitting "I don't know what we're going to do".

Very well said.

[ugordan]

I can't believe it. It's supposed to be a manned rocket! Remember that Saturn I and Saturn V didn't have any total failures (yes, some pogos on Saturn V, but nothing that would imply certain 100% death). STS-1 was a success either.

Get your facts straight. The 1st stage pogo on Apollo 6 was so severe that had there been any crew on top, they would have had to ABORT. STS-1 was also a close call in some respects and Young himself said afterwards that if he knew all the post-flight data before the flight, he would never have accepted to fly. Having to put a crew on an inaugural flight of a vehicle as complex as the Shuttle was one of the dumbest ideas NASA ever had, IMHO.

Numerous launch vehicles started out with failures and then went on to become reliable workhorses. You think R7/Soyuz didn't have issues? How about Ariane 5? Atlas heritage?

You would be well advised to read up on that instead of making such claims about this-n-that criteria. SpaceX simply cannot afford a ludicrously incremental approach to vehicle development like NASA where they fly a shuttle stock booster for $400 million only to test the roll controll system, and using Atlas avionics at that. Inherently, that's the reason SpaceX employ the all-up concept of fully operational stages, a high risk/high reward approach. There are so many more objectives to be met that way that chances of any one going wrong increases dramatically, which makes comparisons between Ares I-X and Falcon 9 (something I'm sure you'll do after the flight) invalid. For that reason, I have greater respect for the Delta IV Heavy maiden flight partial failure than I have about the complete success of Ares I-X. The former verified so many more systems and subsystems for subsequent flights, even though the flight was a partial failure. It enabled the very next flight to be completely successful. Ares I-X style approach leaves too many questions in the open until later incremental flights. More $$$ to be spent.

The chances of the first F9 not working are very real, in fact my pessimistic side would tell you it's a virtual certainty, and Musk realizes that. Better to call it what it is than to spin it like the flight will be a no-brainer.

[Parallax M86]

Well I'd rather it fail while unmanned than with a crew and there will be 15 of these "test" flights.

^This. Very well put.

I have to admit Mr. Musk has more test flights planned than NASA did with most (if not all) of its manned systems. I think Apollo had the most unmanned test flights of any American manned space system so far.

[Zvezdichko]

Get your facts straight. The 1st stage pogo on Apollo 6 was so severe that had there been any crew on top, they would have had to ABORT. STS-1 was also a close call in some respects and Young himself said afterwards that if he knew all the post-flight data before the flight, he would never have accepted to fly. Having to put a crew on an inaugural flight of a vehicle as complex as the Shuttle was one of the dumbest ideas NASA ever had, IMHO.

This is just your opinion. I would tell you NASA is extremely risk-averse today. And if you're too much risk-averse, you're going nowhere.

But perhaps, private companies may be even more risk-averse. After all nobody will want to buy a ticket for space if the rocket isn't reliable.

Unfortunately, this risk aversion is killing manned spaceflight.

[ugordan]

This is just your opinion.

Correct, it is just my opinion - that NASA was foolish to have been forced to put humans on STS-1. The Apollo 6 and STS-1 bits are not my opinion, they are established facts. However, the facts about those other vehicles still stand and thus your claim Musk must be crazy if he's expecting to have failures in a booster meant to one day carry crews is rendered irrelevant and wrong.

Private companies will likely be very safety oriented - otherwise they'll run out of business, but that doesn't imply failure is not an option during testing.

[Zvezdichko]

You may be very right for saying this : but that doesn't imply failure is not an option during testing.

Unfortunately, we're living in a time when we hope to switch from government-funded rockets and spacecraft to private rockets and spacecraft. A failure for whatever reason will have an enormous impact and will receive coverage in the media. Then this will be used as an argument against private human spaceflight. You may think you're right, but I'm sure you know this will be used against private spaceflight.

We keep forgetting the fact that NASA got open to the private industry during Griffin's time. The COTS program was created during his time. However it was never meant to replace government vehicles, and it was made for two reasons:

1. Private rockets may not work for NASA's mission - to go to the Moon, asteroid, Mars and beyond.

2. Commercial spacecraft isn't mature enough. It's a great idea, but it's still an idea, not a fact.

A member of BAUT told me: "Give them some time". I would say: "Give the Constellation team some time" And it will work.

[ugordan]

We keep forgetting the fact that NASA got open to the private industry during Griffin's time. The COTS program was created during his time.

NASA went commercial long before Griffin. All the NASA unmanned probes have launch services commercially procured. NASA doesn't buy an Atlas V vehicle to play around with it, it buys a launch service on a vehicle, they don't own that vehicle.

The similar model would apply for crews, NASA would buy a service of transportation of crew to ISS just like it buys the commercial service of sending Juno onto its Jupiter injection trajectory.

However it was never meant to replace government vehicles, and it was made for two reasons:

1. Private rockets may not work for NASA's mission - to go to the Moon, asteroid, Mars and beyond.

See above. "Private" rockets work for the Moon (LRO), Mars (MER, MRO, PHX, MSL), asteroid (DAWN), beyond (NH, Juno). Nobody's proposing NASA get out of building manned/unmanned spacecraft for BEO exploration. The proposal is for NASA to get out of the launch business and LEO transport duties. That's not where the "frontier" is anymore.

2. Commercial spacecraft isn't mature enough. It's a great idea, but it's still an idea, not a fact.

Isn't mature enough? Who do you think built every single historic U.S. spacecraft? Contractors and that is a fact. The same contractors that would be involved in the "commercial" approach, only the procurement method would be different. I'm frankly getting sick and tired of this argument of "commercial isn't mature enough".

I would say: "Give the Constellation team some time" And it will work.

No it, won't. There won't be any money to sustain it. Get over it already. It's unsustainable. Also realize this isn't a CxP thread.



Anyways... NET June 2/3. Webcast will be here: http://spacex.com/webcast.php

[Parallax M86]

1. Private rockets may not work for NASA's mission - to go to the Moon, asteroid, Mars and beyond.

Going to the Moon, Mars and beyond is still in NASA's ballpark right now. Private companies are only competing against NASA for the LEO launching business. If SpaceX can live up to its low cost ambitions that's a battle NASA would probably not win and would probably be happy in the long-run to lose. It would take a great deal of stress off NASA.

2. Commercial spacecraft isn't mature enough. It's a great idea, but it's still an idea, not a fact.

If it works it will be as mature as NASA was during the Mercury/Gemini Era.

[01101001]

A failure for whatever reason will have an enormous impact and will receive coverage in the media. Then this will be used as an argument against private human spaceflight. You may think you're right, but I'm sure you know this will be used against private spaceflight.

You have me more confused than usual. Are you saying:

1) NASA and companies in the spaceflight industry are overly averse to risk.
2) No failure should be allowed.

[newpapyrus]

Space X should not even be talking to NASA about manned spaceflight until they actually achieve manned spaceflight!

Marcel F. Williams

[ugordan]

Space X should not even be talking to NASA about manned spaceflight until they actually achieve manned spaceflight!

LOL. You're funny.

I would expand your "logic" further. Since SpaceX would have developed manned capability by themselves in that case, with no help from NASA whatsoever, I would very much like them to charge NASA at least 2x per seat of what Russia charges with Soyuz, thus costing the U.S. taxpayer more in the end than what was saved by not helping them out. You get what you pay for.

How'd you like them apples now?

[Zvezdichko]

First, many thanks to Swift for taking actions and splitting the thread into a separate discussion.

Second - I dislike when ANYONE is risk averse. Space exploration is about risks. If you want to go to space, you accept risks. Failures get extreme media coverage and this can't be avoided anyway...

I would expand your "logic" further. Since SpaceX would have developed manned capability by themselves in that case, with no help from NASA whatsoever, I would very much like them to charge NASA at least 2x per seat of what Russia charges with Soyuz, thus costing the U.S. taxpayer more in the end than what was saved by not helping them out. You get what you pay for.

I'm not an advocate of Marcel, but IMO he wanted to say that Private human spaceflight is just an idea. Nobody has ever sent people into space yet and I'm not counting suborbital flights. What SpaceX is doing is exciting, but nothing has come out yet.

[Jens]

Second - I dislike when ANYONE is risk averse.

Really? Does that mean you don't look out for cars when you cross the street? And don't stop for red lights? If you are just limiting your discussion to space, would be in favor of having a spaceship reenter without shielding, because who knows, it just might make it?

[Zvezdichko]

Do you always wait for the green light? What does happen when you're waiting for the green light, and there aren't any cars on the street?

[Larry Jacks]

1. Private rockets may not work for NASA's mission - to go to the Moon, asteroid, Mars and beyond.

Neither would the Ares I. It was only designed to carry the Orion capsule and service module to LEO.

2. Commercial spacecraft isn't mature enough. It's a great idea, but it's still an idea, not a fact.

How many actual spacecraft do you think NASA has built as opposed to those built by commercial companies?

A member of BAUT told me: "Give them some time". I would say: "Give the Constellation team some time" And it will work.

In addition to time, you'd have to give the Constellation team about another $40 billion just to develop the Ares I and Orion. If you actually want to go somewhere else, you'll need additional years and billions more dollars to develop that hardware. In aviation, there's a saying that goes, "Give me enough power and I can make a barn door fly." For NASA, give them enough money and time and they can make Constellation fly. However, it's absurd to the point of obscenity to spend the government estimate of $49 billion just to develop the Ares I and Orion. That's a grotesque waste of tax dollars. "Apollo on Steroids" was a poorly conceived, poorly executed program that is too expensive to develop and too expensive to operate. It deserves to be canceled.

[Zvezdichko]

Neither would the Ares I. It was only designed to carry the Orion capsule and service module to LEO.

That's correct, with the only exception it was designed to put a BIG Orion in LEO. I don't see any other rocket capable to launch the Big Orion. Atlas V/Delta IV can launch only stripped-down spacecraft, that is not technically ready to dock with an Earth departure stage.

How many actual spacecraft do you think NASA has built as opposed to those built by commercial companies?

NASA by itself doesn't build spacecraft. The agency has contracts with a lot of providers, but these providers were all the same during the past 30-40 years and I'm talking about Manned spaceflight, not unmanned probes. You know these- Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc... So the difference isn't that big.

By commercial companies I actually mean SpaceX, Bigelow, all these new companies.

In addition to time, you'd have to give the Constellation team about another $40 billion just to develop the Ares I and Orion. If you actually want to go somewhere else, you'll need additional years and billions more dollars to develop that hardware. In aviation, there's a saying that goes, "Give me enough power and I can make a barn door fly." For NASA, give them enough money and time and they can make Constellation fly. However, it's absurd to the point of obscenity to spend the government estimate of $49 billion just to develop the Ares I and Orion. That's a grotesque waste of tax dollars. "Apollo on Steroids" was a poorly conceived, poorly executed program that is too expensive to develop and too expensive to operate. It deserves to be canceled.

Remember what the Augustine commission said. There's no way to have a meaningful space program without more funds. Constellation and all alternatives require funding. The barn door is a bad example IMO- we're talking about going to the Moon and Mars with humans - which is just not possible without "waste of tax dollars". The commission said it.

Constellation never received its promised fundings. That's not a reason to terminate it.

[ugordan]

That's correct, with the only exception it was designed to put a BIG Orion in LEO. I don't see any other rocket capable to launch the Big Orion. Atlas V/Delta IV can launch only stripped-down spacecraft, that is not technically ready to dock with an Earth departure stage.

Incorrect, both Atlas V Heavy and Delta IV Heavy (especially with RS-68A upgrade that'll fly in 2011 or 2012.) have that performance with margin to spare. They would also lower the max-Q environment, enabling the LAS to be made smaller.

Ares I was redundant, too expensive and should never have happened. That money should have gone to better uses.

[Zvezdichko]

Hops... Atlas V heavy is far from reality. Not a single flight...

Delta IV heavy... Hm... My mistake. I just saw the specifics. You're right. Still, I'm not convinced it can be safer than Ares I. It may be not, but these strap-on cores should be of concern.

[ugordan]

Hops... Atlas V heavy is far from reality. Not a single flight...

Far from it, my friend. It's a virtual certainty. 95% of hardware has already flown and been qualified on the single core Atlas V. Only some design work and pad mods are required. An Atlas V Heavy is available 30 months from first order. No one ordered one yet, that's all.

Would you call Falcon 9 far from reality, because it hasn't flown either? Because even now, Atlas V Heavy is more real than Falcon 9.

Still, I'm not convinced it can be safer than Ares I. It may be not, but these strap-on cores should be of concern.

You see strap-on cores as a concern, I see un-shut-downable solid boosters as a concern. Different worlds you and me, I guess.

[Craigboy]

Far from it, my friend. It's a virtual certainty. 95% of hardware has already flown and been qualified on the single core Atlas V. Only some design work and pad mods are required. An Atlas V Heavy is available 30 months from first order. No one ordered one yet, that's all.

Would you call Falcon 9 far from reality, because it hasn't flown either? Because even now, Atlas V Heavy is more real than Falcon 9.

Actually no, no it's not. A F9 is on the pad, with more than more twelve missions planned within the next 30 months. A Atlas V Heavy has no current plans to fly. If one was ordered today, twelve Falcon 9s have the potential to fly before one Atlas V Heavy.

[ugordan]

Actually no, no it's not.

Actually, yes, it is. By virtue of those 95% hardware that's already flown numerous times and proven itself. Nothing on F9 is as of yet flight proven in an environment specific to a F9 vehicle so my point stands. This may obviously change next week in F9's favor, but as of now, A-V Heavy is still more real. There may be unworkable things about the F9 that we don't know about yet and which will need to be redesigned. Fielding a completely new vehicle is a different ball game to evolving an existing one.

[Craigboy]

Because even now, Atlas V Heavy is more real than Falcon 9.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
You basing this all off of tested hardware, there's a Falcon 9 on the launch pad, the Atlas V Heavy hasn't even been built. I believe it's likely that the Atlas V Heavy is eventually going to be built but it's not more real than a Falcon 9, an already constructed vehicle with the possibility of launching within the week. Maybe what you mean to be arguing is that if an Atlas V Heavy and both a Falcon 9 rocket were sitting on a pad today, than the AVH would be more likely to get a payload to orbit, that would be true, but that's not the case.

[ugordan]

I don't think you really understand what I mean by "more real now". Having a bunch of hardware sitting on the pad is irrelevant. Yes, I'm basing it on confidence levels of tested hardware, not the amount of built-and-unflown hardware sitting on the pad, which is a sound engineering approach. Even Musk will tell you he expects the chances of success are substantially lower than 100%. ULA on the other hand would be able to practically guarantee the inaugural Atlas Heavy to work, based on the loads of actual engineering data collected in flight.

One vehicle has 95% of the hardware built, already flown and verified. The other has 100% hardware, but none of it flown and verified. By my metrics that makes the confidence level at this moment that A-V H would successfully put a payload into orbit higher than what it is for F9.

Make no mistake, I'm not claiming F9 is a paper rocket, far from it, however the chances of it becoming operational soon are anybody's guess. What would you say if it blew up 5 seconds after liftoff next week? That it's still more real than an Atlas Heavy?

[Craigboy]

I don't think you really understand what I mean by "more real now". Having a bunch of hardware sitting on the pad is irrelevant. Yes, I'm basing it on confidence levels of tested hardware, not the amount of built-and-unflown hardware sitting on the pad, which is a sound engineering approach. Even Musk will tell you he expects the chances of success are substantially lower than 100%. ULA on the other hand would be able to practically guarantee the inaugural Atlas Heavy to work, based on the loads of actual engineering data collected in flight.

One vehicle has 95% of the hardware built, already flown and verified. The other has 100% hardware, but none of it flown and verified. By my metrics that makes the confidence level at this moment that A-V H would successfully put a payload into orbit higher than what it is for F9.

Make no mistake, I'm not claiming F9 is a paper rocket, far from it, however the chances of it becoming operational soon are anybody's guess. What would you say if it blew up 5 seconds after liftoff next week? That it's still more real than an Atlas Heavy?

So by more real you mean a successful a lunch vehicle? By that definition than yes, they're at the same level.

I do still think it's much more likely that the Falcon 9 will become one before the AVH, but I do wish them both success in their endeavors.

[ugordan]

So by more real you mean a successful a lunch vehicle?

Yes, risk the two vehicles need to face before becoming operational. It's currently much higher for F9, but that can change within a week.

I do still think it's much more likely that the Falcon 9 will become one before the AVH

And I agree with that, but the fact remains that at this very moment (and, again, that may well change within a week), a greater question mark is looming above Falcon 9. Which is all my argument was really about.

[Doodler]

[color=blue] STS-1 was a success either.

Columbia came back from STS-1 with more overall damage than the flight that eventually ripped her apart over California. The aft of the ship was nearly shaken to pieces from the shockwaves rebounding off the pad. From STS-2 onward, NASA implemented the waterbased shock mitigation system. Add to that, the shuttles flew with the flawed booster rockets dozens of times before Challenger was destroyed.

Prior to Mercury flying, there were dozens of unmanned launches that were lost from the pad to barely airborne. The entire Explorer program was a large scale fireworks display until nearly the tenth flight. Ultimately, it all comes down to a major risk strapping oneself onto the top of tons of high explosives, even when it does work properly, and there are no shortage of people willing to roll the dice.

[Larry Jacks]

The other has 100% hardware, but none of it flown and verified.

This isn't quite accurate. The Merlin engines used in the Falcon 9 have flown in the Falcon 1. There may also be other commonalities such as the rocket avionics and guidance systems but I can't vouch for that one way or the other.

Overall, your point about the relative maturity of the Atlas V Heavy is sound. However, until it has flown you don't know what gotchas might exist in the design. The Delta IV Heavy uses the same core concept as the Atlas V Heavy. The Delta IV had flown several times before they attempted the first D IV Heavy launch. Ultimately, that launch was only partially successful due to a relatively minor problem that was easily fixed but not discovered until they flew it in the Heavy configuration. There is always the possibility of similiar gotchas in the Atlas V Heavy that won't be known until it flies.

[ugordan]

Larry, that's all quite true, but the point about the gotchas is that you can expect a lot more of them on a completely untested vehicle. Regarding the Merlin, it's true two Merlin 1cs have flown on Falcon 1 before, but note I specifically said "Nothing on F9 is as of yet flight proven in an environment specific to a F9 vehicle". The Merlins flown so far have been throttled down and the plume impingement environments will be completely different (of course, one might say the same about 3 Atlas CCBs, at least to a degree). The 9 Merlins are in for a much more stressing ride on the F9. I also can't comment how much commonality the avionics have. I'd guess quite a lot, even though F9 avionics are supposed to be dual redundant, which F1 wasn't and will increase complexity.

Overall, I'm not as concerned with F9's subsystems as on their own they've been pretty well tested. It's the subtle interactions between systems and subsystems that tends to get SpaceX. Barring any dumb mistakes like wiring shorting out, etc., I'd expect first F9's issues (if any) would be something subtle, yet possibly also "obvious" in hindsight.

[Zvezdichko]

First, congrats to SpaceX. I'm impressed...

This was really a great day for private industry. I may rethink my opinion in the end.

Because I can't really understand - how we can have a rocket fully built and launched successfully for far less bucks than NASA spends? How is it possible - after years of spending billions of dollars we have a single stage flight (incomplete first stage) and a second stage mockup? And meanwhile, spending just several hundred millions of dollars produces a cheap rocket capable of delivering astronauts in orbit?