Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-08 01:19:58

http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic … 9&start=40
No, its because Shuttle/ISS are sucking up more money, not because of a planning or development delay. 2014 has always been the date for manned CEV/CLV flights, the 2012 date was the "optimistic" one.
And you are still a moron about stations/landers, and your hairbrained scheme with all its parts and price tags would be a much much more complex prediction then the planned date of the CEV's first flight anyway.

Breaking News: "the REAL date for the first CEVCLV flight was 1985 but, unfortunately, NASA have used its time to launch the Shuttle, build the ISS, send probes/rovers to mars, jupiter, saturn, etc..."

seriously...

when NASA announced "2012" for the first CEV flight, they ALREADY know they must launch 19 shuttles within 2010, then, the "new date" is due to the delays that happen AFTER the ESAS plan was published

I've not the time to re-post here the entire forums where I've posted in last 10 months... but I wish to say that...

I've suggested months ago to resize the CEV for 4 astronauts... and NASA have resized it to 5 mt.

I've said months ago that redesign the SSME to be air-started was 3 years and billions lost... and NASA have changed it to the J-2x

I've suggested months ago (in my article of sept. 2005 and in a forum) to modify the shuttle to fly crewless... and, months after my article, NASA announced in february that they will modify the shuttle for crewless automatic return/landing

I get ridiculized when, in december 2005, I've suggested to use the Shenzhou and to cooperate with China about space and moon missions... and now the NASA chief will go in China and from Washington comes the "suggestion" to build a common USA/China hatch for joined and/or rescue missions

the list is very long and include predictions and evaluations made months ago about the CEV/CLV real costs, the suggestion to build TWO different SM for ISS and moon missions (please see usspacenews.com two SM and... also the ISS version will be with FOUR seats, NOT six...) the problems of the "stick" etc.

but the most incredible was the "case for methane"...

the NASA's army of scientists and engineers have studied for years the use of the methane with the new moon/mars vehicles

Zubrin suggested it years ago for its mars-direct

in 2004 (when Bush announces the VSE) the "new fuel" was "methane"

in last two years the propellent was "methane"

in all three months to write of the ESAS plan the SM/LSAM fuel was "methane"

in the FINAL plan published at the end of december (after many years of thinking, two years of design and three months of work to write the ESAS plan) the ONLY (and definitive!) fuel was "METHANE"

but, in january 2006, I've published a few posts on a forum (that hosts hundreds of NASA and contractors engineers) with my opinion about "methane"

I can give you the links (if the posts still exists) but, in brief, I've suggested to use ONLY the LOX/LH2 propellant in the SM and LSAM for two main reasons:

1. the LOX/LH2 can be used to have extra water and energy for the crew if something goes wrong and they need to wait weeks for a rescue, and..

2. the LOX/LH2 was the ONLY choice to "HOPE" a future (possible) lunar ISRU because (IF WE WILL BE LUCKY!!!) we can find WATER on the moon, but NOT "methane"!!!

well... less than ONE WEEK after my posts (I repeat... less than ONE WEEK after my posts) and despite years of studies and the 3-months "FINAL" ESAS plan (written by ARMY of NASA engineers...) the news was that NASA "scraps methane from ESAS plan"

why they have not decided that two years ago or one year ago or six months ago or while they have written the ESAS plan or the last days before publish it or the days after it was published... but... only a week after my posts on a forum FULL of users that works for NASA and contractors?

of course, it was only a "coincidence"...

but, the reason I was (and I'm) RIGHT is that I evaluate/discuss the problems with COMMON SENSE and NOT with a BLIND and FANATIC support of all NASA choices (before they change them...)

CEV, CLV, etc. are ONLY "space hardware" NOT a "new religion" (and NASA is not a sect...)

.

Rxke · 2006-06-08 04:07:45

You're making quite the fool of yourself.

Too bad poor moderators like me can't tick the 'ignore' button,

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-08 04:21:08

You're making quite the fool of yourself.
Too bad poor moderators like me can't tick the 'ignore' button,

since english is not my mother language your post is not easy to understand for me

but if the word "fool" is against me, I wish to say that...

if I post (here) an "opinion" to-day, and, after "n" months "my" opinion become true... I'm not "fool" but (simply) "right"

and... "coincidences" remains only "coincidences"... (of course)

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-08 06:13:22

Okay, maybe I can explain it for you: your bragging shows that you are stupid gaetano, and serves no purpose about the discussion of this thread. And infact your "bragging" is made up of lots of things that just aren't true.

First of all, other space commentators (eg Jeff Bell) have already made many of these predictions or expressed these doubts before you did, and most of these are either obvious or aren't what you say.

1-CEV capsule was NOT resized for a smaller crew. A 3m Apollo capsule could hold five for short times, a 5m capsule can hold six for short times easy. And you can't even get your units straight, its five meters, not five tonnes you idiot. This was done since the CLV upper stage is smaller with the five-segment SRB.
2-SSME was always a bad idea, and I think everybody suspected that, this isn't a surprise, and your prediction is worthless. Once even a little homework was done on how hard it would be, the idea was dropped.
3-NASA probably won't modify Shuttle for automatic operation, it would be too expensive and take too long, NASA would never make the 2010 deadline. You offer no support for this assertion.
4-The China move is just an attempt to offload more of the ISS to other countries, and it will be many years before China will be ready for ISS duty. This is just a diplomatic gesture and not much of a real offer.
5-You offer a very weak assertion about there being multiple service modules, which makes little sense because CLV will cost the same to launch either one. Illogical rumors are rarely true.

And now you are waving your arms about fuels for the CEV-SM and LSAM again...

-CEV Service Module should carry enough fuel for the return from Earth as a safety measure. To store this fuel, it simply cannot be Hydrogen.
-Methane can provide power and water like Hydrogen can, just not quite as well (a pair of microturbines perhaps). There really isn't much chance of a rescue anyway.
-Hydrogen was always going to be used for the LSAM's decent stage, this is no news, and it makes sense to.

well... less than ONE WEEK after my posts (I repeat... less than ONE WEEK after my posts) and despite years of studies and the 3-months "FINAL" ESAS plan (written by ARMY of NASA engineers...) the news was that NASA "scraps methane from ESAS plan"
why they have not decided that two years ago or one year ago or six months ago or while they have written the ESAS plan or the last days before publish it or the days after it was published... but... only a week after my posts on a forum FULL of users that works for NASA and contractors? ...of course, it was only a "coincidence"

What a delusion of granduer! We haven't had such an insane wacko since Rick Dobson popped up last! You honestly think that hundreds of professional engineers who have been doing this nearly all their adult lives as their jobs were swayed by YOU?

Give me a break! Your website looks like a hot-dog was murderd on top of it and thats your best work! And no, it was only announced a week after your posts, it was probably not decided, so since it likely preceeded your posts even your insane rant then you are even more a deluded fool.

NASA has shyed away from a Methane engine because the engine just has to work: if the engine fails, the crew dies. Making such a reliable engine is difficult, and the only people who would do it are the engineers at Marshall Spaceflight Center, who are well known for not being very good at developing things. NASA already has an engine, the Shuttle OMS engine, which works just fine, but its hypergolic fueled and not Hydrogen either.

If the whole point is to have a reuseable lander someday, then all was have to do is increase the fuel tank volume on the LSAM. It already burns Hydrogen, it already has a good engine, and it will be well tested by the time we want to make it reuseable. Its a great starting place, just delete the acent stage rocket/fuel tanks. Duh

RIGHT is that I evaluate/discuss the problems with COMMON SENSE and NOT with a BLIND and FANATIC support

*Laughs at you and goes to work*

SpaceNut · 2006-06-08 06:42:20

gaetanomarano common sense says that many have had the same exact thoughts and have posted them elsewhere, some as many as years ago when the shuttle stopped flying when the thought of a vision was rumorred.

There are many threads even here, that have discusions of many of these same issues long ago where we talked of what it would take to start the VSE and what would it take for hardware to make it happen.

Rxke · 2006-06-08 07:00:38

*fountains of 'nostrilized' coffee*

Aaaagh! That BURNS!

Sorry, but I just have to have that as a sig...

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-08 07:07:49

...serves no purpose about the discussion of this thread...

...only to demonstrate that I'm right and you're wrong

...other space commentators (eg Jeff Bell) have already made many of these predictions...

sorry, but, MY posts about CEV dimensions, the use of existing rockets instead of a new CLV, etc. was WEEKS before the Jeff Bell article (a coincidence... of course)

...CEV capsule was NOT resized for a smaller crew...

the 5.5 CEV was already too little for six astronauts... now, the 5mt. CEV (only 1.1 mt. more than Apollo) can't host six astronauts with life support, equipments, etc... it's only a capsule for 3/4 astronauts

of course, with two extra-seats (to be used for a few hours) ita may rescue six astronauts from the ISS... but a car built for five passengers don't become a "nine-passengers-car" if nine use it for an emergency!

the REAL crew of the 5mt. CEV for ISS and moon missions is FOUR, then, it is (de-facto) "crew-resized"

...3m Apollo capsule...

the apollo was 3.9 mt

...idiot...

where are the moderators?

...SSME was always a bad idea...

the SSME was NOT a bad idea... the air-started version WAS bad

the SSME was announced from september as the 2nd stage CLV engine (and published in the ESAS plan)

I've posted an opinion against this bad idea (for the time and costs to modify and its risks) when ALL OTHER supported the idea

I've not posted a "prediction" but ONLY a "good opinion" that become true (since I was right)

...NASA probably won't modify Shuttle for automatic operation, it would be too expensive. You offer no support for this assertion...

I've published my idea on my website in september 2005, posted my opinion on a forum in october 2005 and sent many email to space-blogs and sites in the same weeks

NASA announced it in february 2006

the critics and insults I've received when I posted my opinion was about the fact it is "impossible" to do since the Shuttle "was built to have pilots", etc.

I don't know if NASA will really modify it... but one thing is true... I was right again

...many years before China will be ready for ISS duty...

just an illusion... China will grow fast, has tons of fresh money and 400,000 new engineers every year... you will see...

...offer a very weak assertion about there being multiple service modules...

I've published more posts on another forum (than here) about this argument (when I've time I search my posts and give the links)

...Illogical rumors are rarely true...

it may be only a "rumors" but NOT "illogical" since the unused tanks/fuel space/weight of a lunar-SM can be used in many better ways for an orbital mission

...Methane can provide power and water like Hydrogen can...

the efficiency is a fraction of hydrogen (about 15%, I've read) then is not the same

and methane engines can't be refueled with lunar ISRU

...You honestly think that hundreds of professional engineers who have been doing this nearly all their adult lives as their jobs were swayed by YOU?

no, of course... it was a "coincidence"

...it was only announced a week after your posts, it was probably not decided, so since it likely preceeded your posts even your insane rant then you are even more a deluded fool...

...it's like say that a newspaper publish in May 10 the wheater forecast of May 11 ("sun") and in May 14 publish a correction like... May 14: the weather forecast for May 11 will be "rain", not "sun" ...absurd!

the fact that NASA/contractors' engineers/employeers/PR-men read (and post...) on space forums (and use the better suggestions) is more credible and rational

.

Rxke · 2006-06-08 10:22:50

where are the moderators?.

rinsing coffee out of their keyboards.

As long as it doesn't get much worse than this, I -as a moderator- am merely bored to tears by this thread.
If you read some other threads, you'll see the moderationrules here are all but nonexistant. We're more like janitors, not cops.

Move along, nothin... errrr I mean: hey, watch where you're going, I just mopped the hallway!

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-08 12:04:55

gaetanomarano common sense says that many have had the same exact thoughts and have posted them elsewhere, some as many as years ago when the shuttle stopped flying when the thought of a vision was rumorred.
There are many threads even here, that have discusions of many of these same issues long ago where we talked of what it would take to start the VSE and what would it take for hardware to make it happen.

maybe some, not all

however, if some of them already are "in the air" that increase the fact that my proposal are not "crazy" but "common sense"

I don't want to claim that I "predict the future" or "talk with aliens" (since it's not true, of course)

I've posted them only to demostrate that my opinions are "right" without need to wait (every time) the next NASA claim that confirms that...

and, about "commons sense"...

"common sense" is... build one rocket (less money, less time, more missions, no risk of fail due to delays, etc.) instead of two

"common sense" is... build the rocket with ready available, reliable, man rated amd cheap parts instead of spend 3 years and $3B to "add a segment to a booster"!!!

"common sense" is... build two reusable-LSAMs (every 20 missions) instead of TWENTY expendable-LSAMs

etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

that is "common sense"

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-08 12:14:34

where are the moderators?.
rinsing coffee out of their keyboards.
As long as it doesn't get much worse than this, I -as a moderator- am merely bored to tears by this thread.
If you read some other threads, you'll see the moderationrules here are all but nonexistant. We're more like janitors, not cops.
Move along, nothin... errrr I mean: hey, watch where you're going, I just mopped the hallway!

I don't want that you become the forums' cops, of course

and, you can see that 99.9% of times I ignore the insults (since I think it's best to post ARGUMENTS)

but it's absurd that I receive a critic if I use (part) of the colors of the forum's text editor, but, never I see any comment against users that (systematically) insults the users that don't agree 200% with their (wrong) opinions

one insult every two words is clearly too much (and doubles the time to edit that gentle "quotes"...)

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-08 17:34:46

only a week after my posts on a forum FULL of users that works for NASA and contractors...
...the fact that NASA/contractors' engineers/employeers/PR-men read (and post...) on space forums (and use the better suggestions) is more credible and rational

You can't weasel your way out of this gaetano, you specifically said that you posted you idea on a board frequented by NASA engineers, who subsequently reccomended "your" idea. You did claim that your posts swayed their opinion, which is truely insane. It is utterly irrational! All your other jibbering about how "its not a COINCIDENCE" and all your other writings utterly pales in comparison to such an assertion!

the 5.5 CEV was already too little for six astronauts... now, the 5mt. CEV (only 1.1 mt. more than Apollo) can't host six astronauts with life support, equipments, etc... it's only a capsule for 3/4 astronauts
of course, with two extra-seats (to be used for a few hours) ita may rescue six astronauts from the ISS... but a car built for five passengers don't become a "nine-passengers-car" if nine use it for an emergency!

Are you having trouble reading? Do you know what "units" means? You can't even keep your units straight... NASA reduced the CEV's size (diameter) from 5.5m to 5.0m. The "m" there stands for "meters," and since you are from an SI country, you must know what that means. I have been talking about meters, and you - without any sign that you realize it - immediatly go on and jibber about metric tonnes (mass).

And please, you are taking credit for NASA "resizing" the CEV when they have done no such thing. The crew size has always been four for long periods, or six for short periods, even for the 5.5m model. Its just symantics to hoot and wave your arms about it being "crew sized" and "just like I said."

I've not posted a "prediction" but ONLY a "good opinion" that become true (since I was right)

No, you are just stoking yourself up, as evidenced by the end of your own phrase.

NASA announced it in february 2006

They did no such thing, that just isn't true, they might have explored the option but they never said that they were going to do it.

just an illusion... China will grow fast, has tons of fresh money and 400,000 new engineers every year... you will see

China will fall apart from its environmental, economic, and sociopolitical upheval. They really dont have that much money. I am also pretty unimpressed by Chinese scientists, particularly their habit of publishing reams of low quality science, and I bet their engineers are much the same.

You might want to at least look at what they are doing: they are just now thinking about copying what Russia did twenty five years ago, and their rockets still burn hypergolics!

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-08 19:02:38

...your posts swayed their opinion...

no, I don't/can't say that... but "nothing is impossible" (and... maybe...)

the "coincidence" was really incredible, because I've posted my opinion about a week after the ESAS plan was published... and the change happens less than a week after my posts...

I think that a movie's director may change a scene months, weeks, days, hours before the movie's premier (with press, televisioons, etc.) but NEVER a week after the movie's premier, when the movie (with the "wrong scene") already is in thousands cinemas, the trailer runs on thousands televisions and the reviews are published on thousands newspapers...

it was a coincidence... of course... but a very unusual coincidence

however, I only wish to say that "my opinion about methane fuel was the RIGHT opinion" (no matter where they have found the suggestion...)

and, only for your information, discuss on a space-forum with peoples that still works for space agencies and companies DON'T is "rare"

months ago, I've had a long discussion (like with you, but without your useless insults) about the Shuttle, the CEV, etc. with a "guy"...

well... months after the end of that discussion, the same "guy" (when asked by a board's user to give his opinion about a CEV's device) posted: "I can't give my opinion because I'm involved in one of the teams that will develop the CEV"

I don't know if that is really true... but, after his claim, I have understand WHY he attacked me when I've posted critics about the CEV dimensions, costs, etc. (and when I've suggested to build a new Shuttle for LEO)

...having trouble reading...

probably YOU have troubles thinking...

in EVERY countries of the world, in EVERY language and EVERY measuring system, change the dimension of EVERY object (a capsule, a computer, a car, etc.) from "5.5" to "5" clearly IS a "resizing" (but, probably, not in your mind...)

...they might have explored the option but they never said that they were going to do it...

again... I don't know if they will really modify the Shuttle (I'm not in their mind)

I wish only to emphasize that, modify the Shuttle to fly crewless, CAN be done

after my article in september and my posts in october, I've received LOTS of critics from "experts" (like you...) that "explained" me why a crewless shuttle was "IMPOSSIBLE" ("the shuttle can't fly alone", "it need a pilot", "a crewless shuttle will crash", etc.)

well... the NASA claim had (simply) demonstrate (again) that my suggestion was RIGHT and POSSIBLE (and, ALL "experts"/critics agaìnst it/me, was WRONG)

...they are just now thinking about copying what Russia did twenty five years ago...

only because China still was a very poor country 20 years ago!

now China grows faster than a rocket and EVERY DAY it become the world's leader of a further technology/industry (ask IBM...)

...they really dont have that much money...

ask your government... you may discover that over $45B of the American public debt is funded with Chinese money

only with its "American" money (that is a VERY LITTLE part of the money they have...) China can start two or more full VSE/ESAS plans (since their engineers and workforce costs 1/10th than in USA and Europe)

and, also Russia is no more a "poor country", since, thanks to the high oil/methane price, they have (to-day) over $230B of reserve!

my (true) impression is that you live/think in "another time/space dimension"

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-08 20:54:46

You are beyond ludicrous gaetano, I think you actually believe your shtick, there is no longer any reason to take you seriously at all. You are either deluded or not serious, in either case there is no point in continuing since you cannot be reasoned with, and either way you will stand by your stupid ideas no matter what.

You continue this "cheat and retreat" style of argument which is patently dishonest, and so obviously so that its insulting, not to mention just stupid. You make these wild claims about "NASA listens to me," or how "NASA will make Shuttle unmanned" and "NASA will build my lander."

And then you turn right around and say "no I never said that, but they might, and its obvious I'm right" over and over again, infact you could just use the same phrase and replace the subjects and they would all be the same.

The person who is disconnected with reality is you, how a clueless fool like you can think that his unreadable writing with its crazy claims and analogies could possibly sway anyone much less professional engineers spending millions, or you who completly abandons all sense & reason whenever it suits to stoke your own ego. Like how your landers will save sooooo much money but condemn ESAS supporters since "you can't know," how you ignore challenges to your spurious assertions and just repeat in garrish text the same drivvel again and again, or how "exploration takes a long time" somehow makes for cheap exploration. Or how $45Bn is somehow signifigant versus $7,000Bn, and Gemini-level technology will suddenly surpass our own... And on and on and on.

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-09 06:23:09

...make these wild claims...

since you live in another ("100% expendable") dimension, you can't imagine HOW MUCH little/mid/big countries/companies/agencies are "SENSIBLE" to press and public opinions...

we can't know if they accept/use public suggestions, but they "monitorize" the international press, televisions, websites, public opinion (with secret surveys) and (also) webforums (especially the most serious and specialized)

also, the have army of "PR men" that, with official claims and "ghost agents" (like, maybe, dozens of forums users with different niknames...) that SUPPORT the country/company/agency policy and choices

...I'm right...

sine I don't sell rockets... I give only my opinions, and, of course, I wish to be "right" not "wrong"... then, I'm pleased when my opinions (weeks or months after I publish/post them) become TRUE

...clueless fool like you...

if you are so "rational" why spend HALF of your time to post (useless) insults?

...how $45Bn is somehow signifigant...

since you live in another ("Apollo era") dimension, you don't realize that China population is TWICE the USA+Europe+Russia, that China economy will become the same of USA+Europe+Russia within 15/20 years and TWICE within 30/40 years

the $45B are only a little part of the US debt but are sufficient for a Chinese VSE

about technology... since China is (now) a capitalist country and have LOTS of money, they can buy ALL the technologies they need for a space program, and, with 400,000 new engineers per years, they can DEVELOP new technologies and (maybe) SELL them to NASA and ESA...

but you can't know this because you live in another ("Mao Tze-Tung/Leonid Breznev") dimension

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-09 06:54:34

...and (also) webforums (especially the most serious and specialized)
also, the have army of "PR men" that, with official claims and "ghost agents" (like, maybe, dozens of forums users with different niknames...) that SUPPORT the country/company/agency policy and choices...

No no, I work for the CIA as a Deputy Subtrifuge and Disinformation Specialist in secret conjunction with the Lockheed Martin and Boeing corporations, honest. My boss is Clark, another board member, who sucessfully ruined the life of that genius Rick Dobson who sought to destroy Lockheed/Boeing/America's grip on space flight... he just had to have his credability broken and done away with.

Oh now I have gone and said too much

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-09 07:20:43

...I work for the CIA...

I don't think CIA become so desperate to hire you as agent...

.

publiusr · 2006-06-09 11:51:35

No no, I work for the CIA as a Deputy Subtrifuge and Disinformation Specialist in secret conjunction with the Lockheed Martin and Boeing corporations, honest. My boss is Clark, another board member, who sucessfully ruined the life of that genius Rick Dobson who sought to destroy Lockheed/Boeing/America's grip on space flight... he just had to have his credability broken and done away with.
Oh now I have gone and said too much

Nice job exposing Darleen Druyen though. Those pictures of her in the buff with Janet Reno were a little tough to take...

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-09-06 23:26:02

I'm just worried we we get so bogged down with CEV/Stick that HLLV will have no chance--and we go from 100 ton orbiters in LEO to Capsules in LEO and never get out of Earth Moon.

Rocket tests planned for NASA’s moonship
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14699227/
NASA hopes to test first stage of Ares 1 rocket April 2009

SpaceNut · 2006-09-21 21:05:35

While we did not really get all the questions answered as to "Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?" in the first 9 pages. We may still yet see what others as well as Myself have sugested to do with the existing EELV's.

Lockheed and Bigelow Human-Rated EELV deal

A formal agreement between the two companies to study Atlas V feasibility for space tourism - including up to 16 launches a year - will be announced shortly. The initiative could radically transform both the "New Space" and traditional launch marketplace.

With this Private Space Habitat Could Launch by 2010

Would Lockheed have to full of a plate if they do move forward with man rating of the basic Atlas V 401?

According to a Lockheed Martin paper unveiled this week at the Space 2006 conference, the basic Atlas V 401 can meet FAA and NASA man-rating requirements with little modification with a much smaller capsule mass of 20,000 lbs.
At 20,000 lbs, there is enough margin in the Atlas V 401's flight envelope to allow the crew to safely abort at any time during launch, closing all unsafe 'black-zones'. Also, at 20,000 lbs structural loads on the vehicle are decreased enough so that a detailed Lockheed analysis indicates that all primary structures meet NASA 1.4 Factor of Safety margins.

C M Edwards · 2006-09-26 15:15:55

Must be something wrong with my eyes - the text in this thread looks all strange...

May I interrupt the flame testing and ask if there is, in fact, an objective answer to the original question?

Standards organizations like ISO, ANSI, ASME, and AIAA publish guidelines and certified standards for aircraft, submersibles and pressure vessels for human occupancy here in the States. Title 14 of the US Code of Federal Regulations has been expanded to include safety certification of spacecraft, including manned vehicles.

Is it possible that there is a list of applicable published standards that, if adopted, could define what's necessary for a man-rated rocket?

publiusr · 2006-10-27 13:05:54

I'm just worried we we get so bogged down with CEV/Stick that HLLV will have no chance--and we go from 100 ton orbiters in LEO to Capsules in LEO and never get out of Earth Moon.
Rocket tests planned for NASA’s moonship
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14699227/
NASA hopes to test first stage of Ares 1 rocket April 2009

I hope I live to see it launch.

SpaceNut · 2015-07-04 17:36:16

Wow I had forgotten how bruttal it could be here....

I happened on the man rating issue items for the Titan 2 which was used to launch Gemini...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_II_GLV

Several modifications were made to the Titan missile to man-rate it for Project Gemini:
A Gemini Malfunction Detection System was installed to inform the crew of the rocket's status, and improve response in an emergency.
Redundant systems were fitted to reduce the chances of launch failures.
To help guard against the possibility of a guidance malfunction causing the engine nozzles to gimbal hard right or left, an extra backup guidance system was added.
The second stage propellant tanks were lengthened for longer burn time and unnecessary vernier engines and retro-rockets were removed. Because the second stage engine had had issues with combustion instability, it was equipped with baffled injectors.
A radio control system replaced the inertial guidance used on the missiles.
Modifications were made to the tracking, electrical and hydraulics systems in the interest of improved reliability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-rat … tification

human-rating certification is the assurance that the space system accommodates human needs, effectively utilizes human capabilities, controls hazards with sufficient certainty to be considered safe for human operations, and provides, to the maximum extent practical, the capability to safely recover the crew from hazardous situations. NASA Procedural Requirement NPR 8705.2B - Human Rating Requirements for Space Systems, defining the certification process and a set of technical requirements to be applied to its crewed space systems in addition to the standards and requirements that are mandatory for all of NASA's space flight programs.

"Human Rating Requirements for Space Systems"

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/07/ … -launches/

The Altas V is the launch vehicle of choice for three of the commercial crew competitors – Sierra Nevada Corporation’s Dream Chaser, Boeing’s CST-100 and initially Blue Origin’s biconic-shape capsule – with a downselect of the suitors expected within the very near future.

I wonder if the thoughts to use atlas V have changed any in the light of Russian engine issues.....

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2006-06-08 01:19:58

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#152 2006-06-08 04:07:45

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#153 2006-06-08 04:21:08

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#154 2006-06-08 06:13:22

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#155 2006-06-08 06:42:20

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#156 2006-06-08 07:00:38

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#157 2006-06-08 07:07:49

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#158 2006-06-08 10:22:50

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#159 2006-06-08 12:04:55

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#160 2006-06-08 12:14:34

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#161 2006-06-08 17:34:46

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#162 2006-06-08 19:02:38

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#163 2006-06-08 20:54:46

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#164 2006-06-09 06:23:09

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#165 2006-06-09 06:54:34

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#166 2006-06-09 07:20:43

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#167 2006-06-09 11:51:35

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#168 2006-09-06 23:26:02

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#169 2006-09-21 21:05:35

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#170 2006-09-26 15:15:55

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#171 2006-10-27 13:05:54

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#172 2015-07-04 17:36:16

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

Board footer