Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

Websites
related space history websites

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Exploration: Asteroids, Moon and Mars
  Human-rating the Delta IV Heavy EELV

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Human-rating the Delta IV Heavy EELV
Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 27328
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-11-2009 05:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Source: NASA (Posted August 11, 2009)
In July 2008, as part of a top-level strategic analysis, NASA tasked the Aerospace Corporation to determine the feasibility and cost of using a human rated Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle in place of the Ares I in NASA’s lunar transportation architecture. After reviewing the preliminary results, NASA asked the Aerospace Corporation to study in more detail the performance of potential upper stage engines for a Delta IV heavy as well as the human rating needs for the RS-68 engine, and to use that more detailed assessment to again review the cost and schedule implications of replacing the Ares I with a human rated Delta IV heavy. Additionally, Aerospace was tasked to address the infrastructure, industrial base, and ground operations aspects associated with use of a human rated Delta IV heavy vehicle.
Download: Human-Rated Delta IV Heavy Study Constellation Architecture Impacts

SpaceAholic
Member

Posts: 3023
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-11-2009 07:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Aerospace Corp's analysis - cost, schedule, performance and technical risk of human rating the Delta IV Heavy either match or improve upon Ares I while having tangential benefits for national security space and the US industrial base.

capoetc
Member

Posts: 1705
From: Newnan GA (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005

posted 08-12-2009 04:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for capoetc   Click Here to Email capoetc     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
According to the study, the change to Delta IV would save $3-6B in Delta life-cycle costs.

However, it would cost an additional $1.1-3.5B in developmental costs for Ares V, with potential additional costs (some of the equipment developed for Ares I could have been adapted for Ares V).

In addition, it would cost an additional $14.1-16.6B in costs for developing the Orion spacecraft, which would have to be re-worked to accommodate the changed booster.

I think I read somewhere that this study did not consider projected safety margins, so that issue would have to be addressed separately.

SpaceAholic
Member

Posts: 3023
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-12-2009 06:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
In addition, it would cost an additional $14.1-16.6B in costs for developing the Orion spacecraft, which would have to be re-worked to accommodate the changed booster.
NASA provided figures which were not independently validated via Aerospace analysis.

I also see life cycle cost savings estimates for Delta IV Heavy as very conservative when assessed in the overall context of total launch systems built and delivered to the government for both commercial and national security applications.

capoetc
Member

Posts: 1705
From: Newnan GA (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005

posted 08-12-2009 07:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for capoetc   Click Here to Email capoetc     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
NASA provided figures which were not independently validated via Aerospace analysis.
Do you think NASA is cooking the numbers? (Honest question, not trying to stir the pot.)

SpaceAholic
Member

Posts: 3023
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-12-2009 08:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think they are skewed given that Aerospace's involvement was initiated prior to Griffin's turnover and an independent analysis of alternatives was not conducted/offered for inclusion in the study. Consider Griffin's consistent assertion that commercial-military rockets like Delta IV could not be human-rated safely and affordability (as benchmarked against Ares), a position undermined by this study.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 27328
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-12-2009 08:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The latest study by Aerospace, which this report is partly the product of, was initiated after Griffin left NASA.

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 1999-2012 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement