ARES V: NASA to assess human rated version

Jon,

who has been talking about man rating the Ares V for over a year? I speak to NASA all the time, its PAO over the phone and its engineers and programme managers face-to-face at conferences and other events. None of them have ever talked about man rating Ares V.

I also monitor as much internal documentation as I can and that has never before mentioned human rating the core stage. I occasionally check NASASpaceflight.com and I don't recall seeing anything there either and that site has a disturbing amount of internal presentations etc. How they get that I have no idea. I hope its not illegally.

I don't want to sound offended, I'm not, or condescending but I think I need to briefly explain the environment inwhich journalists work.

People who work in an industry often hear rumours, some true, some not. The blogosphere lives off those rumours.

If those rumours can be substantiated by a journalist by having some one involved in the issue that is being gossiped about confirm the information then you have a story. Or if an official goes on the record and confirms something, you have a story.

To give you an example, before the boosters we call Ares today were unveiled NASA officials talked openly about "shuttle derived" rockets as an option for Constellation for quite some time but no one had actually gone on the record and confirmed that they had selected the "inline" launchers. Despite the fact that you could see models of the Ares I and V on exhibits for every company at industry events but those companies would not confirm the likelihood of the rockets being chosen.

So when I spoke to Christopher Shank, special assistant to NASA administrator Michael Griffin, and he confirmed the selection of what we call Ares today, I wrote a story on it

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2005/08/23/201125/nasa-picks-rocket-for-return-to-moon.html

At the time Charles Lurio (sorry Charles for dragging you into this) said exactly what you said in your comment above.

But a NASA PA official said to me later, "You're not getting me into trouble like the way you got Chris Shanks into trouble". So clearly, despite all the trailing of the issue in speeches and innuendo about selection, and models on exhibits, NASA was not happy that its final and public decision had been pre-empted by an unguarded comment by someone in a senior position

So you can see that there is a, significance shall we say, between rumour and internal presentations (that can be explained away as discussions) and an officially published document that clearly shows an intention by NASA that has not been publicly acknowledged or discussed on the record by senior agency officials previously.

So under a journalist's definition of what is news, it's news. Again, I am not offended and don't want to sound condescending but I just wanted you, and others, to understand the logic and approach reporters take.

Rob.

I disagree Dwayne. When you say it "does not signify any change in the program," well sorry but it does.

And your argument is similar to Jon's and it goes like this, "I've heard about it so it isn't news"

Well 99% of my readers do not work on NASA rocket programmes or any rocket programme. We are an aerospace news organisation, the definition of news is "new information of interest to the reader," and so for the 99.9% of aerospace engineers and managers who don't get to go to NASA industry days, this decision to spend money on evaluating a man rated version of the core and EDS stages is going to be new and of interest

FYI Journalists don't get to go to industry days, only industry and sometimes NASA publishes the presentations on the web and sometimes it doesn't. I have never come across video from industry days or the technical interchange meetings, if that is what you are referring too

So, as you are part of a tiny elite who get the inside track on Constellation you may think that it's not a change but the rest of us do. No doubt NASA will appreciate your 'its not a story' angle. What contract are you hoping for Dwayne, as you attended that industry day?

Consider for a moment the arguments, the rhetoric, we have heard from NASA for years now. Separate cargo from crew, different launch vehicles, CLV for crew, CaLV for Altair, 1.5 launches architecture, shuttle derived, external tank manufacturing technology to be used for the core stage etc etc

I have googled for that video. NASA industry day September 2008 produces nothing. Under video or web searches. I am aware of a 20 November industry day but no September day.

I have met Griffin a number of times, I monitor his public statements, our DC office (I work in London, England) does also, and man rating Ares V has never been mentioned. I would remember. Please feel free to find such a speech and send it to me

I have interviewed at length Phil Sumrall and met with other Ares V guys and I can assure that at no time did any of them ever mention man rating Ares V, and I have never read anything in Aviation Week to the contrary either

I have sat through so many Constellation presentations at AIAA organised conferences and others you would not believe and have never heard this man rating option ever

So, I hope that is clear enough ;-)

But by YOU not NASA. As interesting as your website can be the point Dwayne is making is that NASA decided this a while back. Sorry but you announcing your point of view 30-months ago that CaLV should carry people is not quite the same

Good to know someone does!

I don't know what you mean by ad hominem, I am not against you. I am certainly not beating up on you. Just because I disagree does not mean it is something personal. I even put a smiley at the end of my message.

I was simply asking a question about the contract as you seemed to be someone who had actually attended it rather than, as we now know, just watched the video.

I realised later that you were talking about the lunar exploration briefing day that media were invited too and my DC based colleague John Croft attended it and wrote this

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/10/04/316683/nasa-to-request-ares-v-altair-technology-ideas-in-january.html

The NASA rebroadcast was later that day and I was not able to watch it as they were so late at night for us here in the UK. Two weeks before that lunar briefing I had attended the AIAA Space 2008 conference in San Diego and then on 29 September I was at the International Astronautical Congress (IAC) in Glasgow

You can watch my video of Steve Creech's Ares V briefing at the IAC here
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2008/10/iac-2008-video-ares-v-briefing.html

The crew carrying Ares V comments you referred to begin at 2h 6min 15s in the lunar briefing chamber of commerce webcast video. I can understand now why John Croft didn't report those human rating comments because Hanley says that while they have never precluded that option it limits the payload to the Moon surface capability (not Steve Cook as you recollected) and Cook says that the 1.5 launch architecture is much safer than launching people on Ares V and he is clearly against the idea

I still maintain that the SDOW human rating study requirement is news because it means that they are actually doing something about what would be needed to achieve it rather than leaving it as simply an entirely theoretical option for the future

Thanks for the video link Dwayne I have put it up as a blog post and thanked you in the blurb text that goes with it

Well it is from NASA's own draft statement of work so if it isn't the agency has a problem. Remember "LEO" is quite a large orbital range from as little as 200km up to 1,200km

And Steve Cook reiterated that and the belief that it is safer in his September industry day comments. I have heard the conspiracy theory that a double launch with EOR was always the plan and that Ares I is an elaborate ploy to keep SRB production going. I guess you would have Altair on one Ares V launch and Orion on another. I am not sure what you do about EDS, whether you have a smaller EDS with Altair and make Altair larger and on the other you have another small EDS but with a beefed up Orion SM, and the TLI point for this new double-EDS, Altair 2.0, Orion stack could enable global access for the Moon where as at the moment it is only 80% - that statement was made by an Altair project office guy at the AIAA Space 2008 conference. A beefed up Orion SM would help with emergency anywhere anytime return

But the 187mT is only to 240km orbit. With Saturn V you had a 43mT TLI capability, more than halving its baseline LEO capability, because low Earth orbit begins at 200km and ends at 1,200km. This is related to the whole EELV, Orion question. At what altitude is Ares V pushing its 71mT EDS/Altair stack, even if it can achieve 187mT at 240km? And at what point does Orion dock with that stack? And what is needed to go to a polar landing site? It's a heck more oomph than an equitorial landing site.

I agree, as I said in an earlier reply, its that faster steeper trajectory that the likes of the EELV are designed for that people forget about.

But that was for equitorial, not polar landings

That's not what Phil Sumrall told me and Frank Morring at the 3rd space exploration conference. I'll address this issue soon, I am about to email NASA about talking to them about the Ares V RFI draft statement of work, but it is Thanksgiving week so don't expect much.

web url?

As I have already said, our DC office senior editor John Croft attended. But it is not the case that all NASA industry days are open to the media. I travel to the US often to cover the US space programme. I haven't dumped on anyone. Not agreeing with someone is not dumping on them. I am allowed my own opinion. Sadly a downside of these comment systems is that some people think it is an opportunity to rant rather than be constructive.