Atlas V to be man-rated

"bob haller" wrote in message
news:99a5ec5c-fb94-4928-a129-

delta heavy should be man rated too

You couldn't get me in one of those
for all the vodka in Russia!

Pat Flannery writes:

On 7/19/2011 6:21 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
bob writes:

delta heavy should be man rated too

Oh, I hope not. I do not trust a rocket whose launch involves setting
itself on fire.

Apparently that isn't a problem when it occurs, but it sure doesn't look
safe, does it?

Not really. On the other hand, the very clean H2/LOX exhaust with shock
diamonds and everything looks *really* pretty. Launchers with
hydrocarbon engines look almost like a steam train against this.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On Jul 19, 8:03*am, David Spain wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
In article . com,
says...
Interesting to note that the article doesn't mention exactly what mods
are needed for man-rating. *I'd say it's mainly software as suggested by
the article - a failure-detection system.

Possibly some sensors to go with that. *

Jeff

Do we know the G-force profile for Atlas-V and Delta-V on ascent?
I suspect if you are a paying customer you can get that info.
If I had the time I could nose around a bit and probably find something relevant.

Adding sensors surely, perhaps even an un-crewed characterization launch for
those new sensors as well.

Don't forget modifications in support of a Launch Escape System.
I presume this man rating effort will tie in with Orion. How much of this is
automated and will require mods to the booster?

Can a booster be fully man rated w/o knowing the capsule payload? Would such a
booster be useful for Orion AND say SpaceX Dragon?

Seems like we're going down two paths here, one is Orion/Atlas/Delta the other
is solely SpaceX Falcon9/Dragon, and you can throw in the other New Space
players as well.

It's a very confus(ing/ed) time...

Dave

Which means that NASA (and Lockheed-Martin) can fly Orion test flights
on an Atlas or Delta while waiting on a HLV for BEO operations. And
that means the Commercial Space zealots/Space X-Elon Musk worshipers/
ObamaSpace fanboys over on spacepolitics.com are freaking out. A lot
of 'em still don't get it: if Congress tells NASA to build and fly
heavy-lift, and appropriates the necessary funds to do so, NASA has to
do what Congress tells it to do. A lot of those fools seem to think
that NASA can pick and choose which parts of the 2010 Authorization
Act to obey and which to ignore. Wrong.

On Jul 19, 10:51*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , nospam@
127.0.0.1 says...







Jeff Findley wrote:
In article . com,
says...
Interesting to note that the article doesn't mention exactly what mods
are needed for man-rating. *I'd say it's mainly software as suggested by
the article - a failure-detection system.

Possibly some sensors to go with that. *

Jeff

Do we know the G-force profile for Atlas-V and Delta-V on ascent?
I suspect if you are a paying customer you can get that info.
If I had the time I could nose around a bit and probably find something relevant.

Adding sensors surely, perhaps even an un-crewed characterization launch for
those new sensors as well.

Don't forget modifications in support of a Launch Escape System.

That's what the sensors and "failure-detection system" are for, to
trigger a launch escape system. *

I presume this man rating effort will tie in with Orion. How much of this is
automated and will require mods to the booster?

Can a booster be fully man rated w/o knowing the capsule payload? Would such a
booster be useful for Orion AND say SpaceX Dragon?

Why not? *As I stated, the modifications are largely to notify a launch
escape system when to fire. *The modifications don't care what capsule
or escape system is on top.

The problem is that Space X apparently doesn't want to fly Dragon atop
anyone else's boosters, and Orion MPCV is way too massive to carried
into orbit by a single common core booster, hence the launch
tenatively scheduled for 2013 on a Delta IV is going to be a Heavy.
This modification of Atlas V strikes me as a smart hedging of bets
towards ensuring manned access to LEO in the advent that Falcon 9 has
a Bad Day.
-Mike

On Jul 19, 11:22*am, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
"GordonD" writes:
Well, remains to be seen... Atlas V has 26 successful flights (100%)
now, but the Shuttle had more than that before Challenger happened.

Not quite. STS-51L was the 25th Shuttle flight.

I stand corrected.


Just a quick point here. The flight rates for STS in the mid-1980's
were far higher than the flight rates than those for Delta-IV or Atlas
V. So by not pushing things, the safety has not suffered for them, the
way it did for the pre-Challenger Shuttle program.
-Mike

On 7/19/2011 6:21 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
bob writes:

delta heavy should be man rated too

Oh, I hope not. I do not trust a rocket whose launch involves setting
itself on fire.

Apparently that isn't a problem when it occurs, but it sure doesn't look
safe, does it?

Pat

On Jul 19, 7:32*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
NASA is providing funds to modify the Atlas V to carry astronauts:

Well, finally. This is what makes sense: stick a capsule on an
existing quality booster, and get astronauts to the ISS again without
spending billions.

But it _is_ distressing that the alternative happens to depend on a
rocket engine imported from Russia.

John Savard

On 7/19/2011 7:03 AM, David Spain wrote:

I suspect if you are a paying customer you can get that info.
If I had the time I could nose around a bit and probably find something
relevant.

Atlas V maximum is 4.6 G:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ssc/co...500Series.html
It throttles to keep that the upper limit.

Delta IV Heavy maximum is around 5.4 G:
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design...4.pl.guide.pdf
That's max; it varies with payload weight.

NASA did a study on man-rating Delta IV in 2009:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/377875main_0...Delta%20IV.pdf

ULA did a study of man-rating both:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/p...Launch2010.pdf
....and the pad infrastructure required.

Pat

On Jul 19, 11:10*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jul 19, 7:32*am, Pat Flannery wrote:

NASA is providing funds to modify the Atlas V to carry astronauts:

Well, finally. This is what makes sense: stick a capsule on an
existing quality booster, and get astronauts to the ISS again without
spending billions.

But it _is_ distressing that the alternative happens to depend on a
rocket engine imported from Russia.

John Savard

Does it really matter? After all the astronauts are going to a
INTERNATIONL space station.

US could buy a license to build the engines in US if they arent
already.


Its insane man rating atlas and delta wasnt done immediately after the
columbia loss

In article 9e6eb710-6c25-4645-8324-
, says...

The problem is that Space X apparently doesn't want to fly Dragon atop
anyone else's boosters, and Orion MPCV is way too massive to carried
into orbit by a single common core booster, hence the launch
tenatively scheduled for 2013 on a Delta IV is going to be a Heavy.
This modification of Atlas V strikes me as a smart hedging of bets
towards ensuring manned access to LEO in the advent that Falcon 9 has
a Bad Day.

Obviously SpaceX would like to see Dragon fly on Falcon. Falcon keeps
the fate of Dragon within the same company. On top of that, it's far
cheaper than Atlas.

What about Boeing's commercial capsule? Assuming it flies, it's got to
go up on something. For Boeing, having Atlas as an option is a good
thing. Falcon may be cheaper, but why would Boeing want to trust their
capsule to be launched *only* by the competition's launcher?

Competition is a good thing, but when the same companies are working on
both launchers and capsules, the situation does become a bit
complicated.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011