Aethon

Blue Origin Thread (merged)

9346 posts in this topic

A question out there for anyone who keeps up with the specifics more than I do:

Is man-rating SLS/Orion any different than man-rating Dragon 2, or CST-100? When, for example, is the max-Q LES test for Orion? They did a pad abort test at White Sands, but I cannot find a video of a max-q abort, nor any indication of a launch before EM-1---or did I miss it somehow?

They have to do this, right, or do only Boeing and SpaceX (and any other commercial crew vessels) have to do this?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Falcon Heavy? ITS? Spacesuits?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mitchz95 said:

Falcon Heavy? ITS? Spacesuits?

Falcon Heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mitchz95 said:

Falcon Heavy? ITS? Spacesuits?

Funny, I was just reading about that. Is it going to be on Twitter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mitchz95 said:

Falcon Heavy? ITS? Spacesuits?

lLxCoWM.jpg

(sorry, couldn't resist)

No but seriously, my money's on Falcon heavy and another disappointing delay. I really really hope I'm wrong. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

No but seriously, my money's on Falcon heavy and another disappointing delay. I really really hope I'm wrong. 

Falcon heavy is finally, officially, going to launch in FIVE months!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Falcon heavy is finally, officially, going to launch in FIVE months!

With a payload of Half-Life 3

11 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting side note: according to this article, the last SpaceX launch went up with an experimental automatic self-destruct system. Actually a really fascinating concept that should help speed up the cadence of launches.

But, I was struck by a certain sense of... irony. <_<

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The on-board safety system, relying on Global Positioning System satellite navigation data, replaces decades-old radars and tracking equipment that required military officers to manually send commands to destroy errant boosters, and their human and robot passengers, before they could threaten people and property.

To help it get man-rated.

Spoiler

1524097-zz.jpg

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the max q abort test will be before EM-2 using a peacekeeper missile. 

How do they get their 1:500 loss rate numbers (requirement for commercial crew) from SLS after just one flight to man rate the LV (that's 4 times better than Shuttle managed, up and down).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tater said:

Apparently the max q abort test will be before EM-2 using a peacekeeper missile. 

Launching a 15 t craft with a 4 t payload rocket?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tater said:

How do they get their 1:500 loss rate numbers (requirement for commercial crew) from SLS after just one flight to man rate the LV (that's 4 times better than Shuttle managed, up and down).

LOC/LOM rates are calculated from the failure rates of individual subsystems, which are calculated from the failure rates of components, etc...

Doing all these calculations is the major component of "man rating" a vehicle.

Edited by Nibb31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

To help it get man-rated.

  Reveal hidden contents

1524097-zz.jpg

 

If the self destruct system activates it would first trigger the launch escape system. 
If crew trigger LES the rocket should self destroy too.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's Falcon Heavy. What are they gonna say? "Yeah ummm we're testing a side core right now". Yeah, those who care already knew that, and those who don't know will be mildly whelmed at best. Even a launch date would not really be worth pre-announcing the announcement; Elon would just write a tweet saying "FH NET 05/27 w/dummy payload" or something to that effect. He's announced more important things with less flourish in the past.

No, there is marketing going on here. PR stuff. Something to catch the attention and imagination of the broad public. And that can only happen when it involves manned spaceflight. So I think it will have to be revealing their space suit. It fits especially well considering Boeing revealed theirs just last month, with major media buzz and celebrity participation. It's a great way for SpaceX to say that "hey guys, we're actually just as far as them, if not farther ahead!"

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An ignorant question, I am sure, but why does each launch provider need to have their own spacesuit? By a Beoing suit and a spacex suit and a NASA suit? Can't they just use what is already on the shelf?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, codepoet said:

An ignorant question, I am sure, but why does each launch provider need to have their own spacesuit? By a Beoing suit and a spacex suit and a NASA suit? Can't they just use what is already on the shelf?

I mean technically they don't, it's mostly for the PR shots. Also I imagine it's partly to do with integrating the suits with the spacecraft (i.e making sure you fit in the chairs and can connect to the radio, life support e.t.c The lack of a generic "off-the-shelf suit" is probably also an issue, what would you adopt as the standard?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA does not appear to be involved with this, so it's unlikely to be the suit. Also it's an 'announcement'; for suits it would be a 'reveal', or something similar.

1 hour ago, codepoet said:

An ignorant question, I am sure, but why does each launch provider need to have their own spacesuit? By a Beoing suit and a spacex suit and a NASA suit? Can't they just use what is already on the shelf?

The only existing NASA suits were built for shuttle; they're too bulky for smaller capsule interiors, and they have a lot of capabilities that the capsules don't need (like acting as a survival suit for bailout over water). The Boeing suit is a heavily simplified version of the shuttle suit; only the SpaceX suit is new.

Edited by Kryten
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Launching a 15 t craft with a 4 t payload rocket?

For the LES test, you only need to go suborbital until MaxQ, i.e. you only need to reach some 15km of altitude. And considering that a Peacekeeper has a TWR of 2.5 (twice that of Saturn V), i.e. much bigger than what SLS probably will have, you can add a considerable payload before it won't be able to reach MaxQ at the desired altitude and speed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

LOC/LOM rates are calculated from the failure rates of individual subsystems, which are calculated from the failure rates of components, etc...

Doing all these calculations is the major component of "man rating" a vehicle.

The mind boggles at how you would calculate such a thing.

I also look with disdain upon the "mean time between failure" numbers bandied around in the consumer electronics industry.

What does "Man rating" mean in practice?

Using components that have proven themselves on unmanned flights?

Additional redundancy, at the minor systems level -  backup electric circuits and valve actuators/sensors/microprocessors - that would not be used on a cargo launcher?

Extra stages of inspection of every assembly action - every time an engineer plugs a connector cable in from one module to another, two others come along to inspect his work?

Thorough non-destructive testing of every component coming from suppliers, be it a fastener , cable or strut, before attempting to fit the part?

More generous safety margins on component spec, erring on the side of cost and weight?

How much safety comes from the above measures, as opposed to 

a)  Mission Architecture

Ensuring there is a viable abort mode for every part of the flight.    One of the issues with the space shuttle being the lack of launch escape system .    

b) Program Management

Avoiding complacency in the face of known risks - Challenger launching outside of the operating temperature parameters of the SRB seals,  Columbia continuing its mission despite foam strike being witnessed on launch. Apollo 1 conducting a ground test with a pure oxygen cabin atmosphere, at much higher pressure than would have been used in space.

In the case of SLS, the issue of whether to launch manned or unmanned first, and what degree of change to the launch vehicle stack config justifies another unmanned test flight.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

LOC/LOM rates are calculated from the failure rates of individual subsystems, which are calculated from the failure rates of components, etc...

Doing all these calculations is the major component of "man rating" a vehicle.

I understand they are calculated, but it seems like comparison with reality would also be in order. The actual shuttle failure rate was substantially higher than that, yet they continued flying. It's a reasonable design goal (1:500 launch failures, 1:500 reentry failures), but it seems like given even the most optimistic launch cadence for SLS/Orion, they will not have enough real data for a long, long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Tullius said:

considering that a Peacekeeper has a TWR of 2.5

Then TWR 2.5 * 4 / 15 ~= 0.7

So, maybe if just the first stage of  MX, replacing other stages with Orion.

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Then TWR 2.5 * 4 / 15 ~= 0.7

So, maybe if just the first stage of  MX, replacing other stages with Orion.

Peacekeeper weighs approx. 90 tonnes, i.e the calculation is something along the lines of (90+4)/(90+15)*2.5=2.24. So there is still plenty of TWR to spare at takeoff.

Edited by Tullius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric Berger says it's likely the suits FWIW. Chris Bergin agrees. <shrug>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AeroGav said:

The mind boggles at how you would calculate such a thing.

I also look with disdain upon the "mean time between failure" numbers bandied around in the consumer electronics industry.

What does "Man rating" mean in practice?

Using components that have proven themselves on unmanned flights?

Additional redundancy, at the minor systems level -  backup electric circuits and valve actuators/sensors/microprocessors - that would not be used on a cargo launcher?

Extra stages of inspection of every assembly action - every time an engineer plugs a connector cable in from one module to another, two others come along to inspect his work?

Thorough non-destructive testing of every component coming from suppliers, be it a fastener , cable or strut, before attempting to fit the part?

More generous safety margins on component spec, erring on the side of cost and weight?

Pretty much all of the things that you mentioned.

Components have MTBF ratings and known failure modes. Not all of those failure modes cause a LOM/LOC. There is also built-in redundancy and redundant systems.

This is all why "man rating", like most certification processes, is such an expensive thing, even though it's mainly just a lot of paperwork. Think ISO9000 on steroids. This is also why the aerospace industry uses aerospace-certified components and frowns upon SpaceX's conduct of buying"off-the-shelf" struts and fasteners.

 

3 hours ago, tater said:

I understand they are calculated, but it seems like comparison with reality would also be in order. The actual shuttle failure rate was substantially higher than that, yet they continued flying. It's a reasonable design goal (1:500 launch failures, 1:500 reentry failures), but it seems like given even the most optimistic launch cadence for SLS/Orion, they will not have enough real data for a long, long time.

Absolutely. It's theoretical of course (I doubt there will ever be 500 flights of SLS), but you've gotta work with something, right?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.