credit United Launch Alliance / caption: In 2007 the Delta IV launches the USAF DSP-23 satelliteWatching the NASAtv webcast repeats of United Launch Alliance (ULA) president and chief executive Michael Gass' presentation and the Aerospace Corporation's Gary Pulliam explanation of the Delta IV study, it became clearer that the original NASASpaceflight.com (NSF) report was based on ULA's argument (was it me or was Gass very nervous?). The ULA, NSF similarities are:
- the selling point for the Boeing Delta IV Heavy is its alleged 20% performance margin
- the need for the still-in-development RS-68A to achieve the 20% performance margin
- the claim that the black zones are not an issue with the RS-68A enabled 20% margin
- ULA/NSF claim a 2014 Initial Operating Capability (IOC) date for Delta IV Heavy
- ULA claims 4.5-years to IOC for Delta IV Heavy
- ULA says $800 million for a new pad, NSF said $750 million
Watching Pulliam's presentation the significant points indicating that the report does not support the safety and other claims made by ULA/NSF are:
- Pulliam said the report only looked at cost and schedule
- Aero Corp says up to 7-years needed to realise human rated Delta IV Heavy
- And an extra year is needed for new Orion/Delta interfaces with a different upper stage
The Flame Trench blog post that Hyperbola has previously discussed was entitled Report: EELVs Could Safely Launch Orion but we now know that the Aerospace Corp study did not tackle safety, only "cost and schedule," Pulliam's own words
Augustine panel member and former astronaut Leroy Chiao asked Pulliam if a "PRA" had been carried out. Hyperbola has confirmed with Chiao that he was referring to loss of crew or loss of mission probabilistic risk assessment. Puliam's answer was a no, confirming that the Aerospace Corporation study did not examine safety
on June 22, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply
Are there any details on the 100+ ton EELV? Is it better or worse than Ares V?
NASA will be stuck in LEO (again) if nothing is done about heavy lift.
on June 22, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply
.
.
I believe the Ares-1 will survive just a few months until the Ares 1-X test will show it can't work properly (or can't fly manned) as explained in the sugegstion #3 of my list of suggestions for the Human Space Flight Plans Committee and NASA:
.
http://ow.ly/f3vQ
.
.
on June 22, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply
The 100,000kg EELV is a major evolution. I guess you could develop instead of Ares V. NASA won't be stuck in LEO if it goes ahead and builds Shuttle-C!
on June 22, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply
.
man-rate an EELV absolutely CAN'T need 7+ years, since, "7 years" are enough to... a) develop a NEW rocket... b) actually BUILD it... c) do some TEST flights... d) launch several satellites with the new rocket... AND e) man-rate it (if required)
despite they was developed and build with the primitive '60s technology (if compared with the sci-fi technology we have today!) the Saturn-5 and Apollo have needed LESS time from the program start to its first manned launch in 1968
probably, the people that say this study was made (and "leaked" today just two days before the Augustine panel audition...) to SUPPORT the Ares-1 program, are right in their claims... :)
however, despite I think that the Ares-1 can't fly, I did not believe that a man-rated Delta IV Heavy could be safer than Ares-1 without a DEEP redesign of this rocket
.
on June 23, 2009 1:12 AM | Reply
Oddly enough, the presentations for the Shuttle-C and EELV wouldn't come up, so it's difficult to evaluate. But from my own calc's, a 5-core booster stack for both the ATLAS V and DELTA 4 will only net an extra 10+/- tons to LEO. They'd need two-engines in an extended core to even approach 100,000kg using a 5-core configuration and the Atlas would need a cryogenic upper stage as well:with multiple engines.
Shuttle-C's looking better and better: NO booster stack changes...providing they design the Pod intelligently and avoid the temptation for RTW shennanigens!
on June 23, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply
I'll have more info on this later this week. With any launch vehicle there are advantages and disadvantages but it does appear that from a budgetary POV the resurrection of Shuttle C is viewed as a realistic option.
on June 23, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply
Rob,
I can't believe you wrote this nonsense.
1) NASA, not ULA, controlled the Aerospace study. NASA made Aerospace rewrite the conclusions twice. Perhaps the NSF report was based on the first draft, which was more pro-EELV than NASA could stomach?
2) My sources in ULA told me that the NSF report was WRONG. That the actual study was much more negative about Delta IV.
3) Yes, Gass was nervous. Not all people that build rockets are good public speakers. But to think he was nervous because of some alleged spinning of NSF...??? I think you've cut yourself shaving with Occam's razor and lost too much blood to the brain.
4) Like you, I'm something of a fan of Shuttle C, since it's doable. But if you don't want Ares 5 anymore, then Ares 1 really is dead. Nobody would ever build Ares 1 if they weren't building Ares 5.
Please get back to that fact-based journalism we yanks love!
- Jim
on June 23, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply
Wait Jim, there is more to come...
on June 25, 2009 3:18 AM | Reply
@Jim Muncy
What Rob writes is a heck of lot less nonsensical than to expect a company like ULA, who could not offer competitive bids for COTS and whose owners have a history of cost overruns on government contracts, to provide a realistic, practical plan for utilizing EELV for ISS crew access. A company, who lost out on COTS, suddenly is asking for another cost plus contract for EELV/Orion to ISS concept from NASA smacks of backdoor politics. So the credibility of Mr Gass claims are dubious at best. If ULA is so sure of their design then they should be willing to compete for COTS D funding like any other commercial space company. BTW, Boeing and Lockheed had more influence on Aerospace Corp report than NASA. They controlled the proprietary data on Delta IV and Atlas V design.