|
Author
|
Topic: Human-rating the Delta IV Heavy EELV
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-11-2009 05:31 PM
   
Source: NASA (posted August 11, 2009) In July 2008, as part of a top-level strategic analysis, NASA tasked the Aerospace Corporation to determine the feasibility and cost of using a human rated Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle in place of the Ares I in NASA's lunar transportation architecture. After reviewing the preliminary results, NASA asked the Aerospace Corporation to study in more detail the performance of potential upper stage engines for a Delta IV heavy as well as the human rating needs for the RS-68 engine, and to use that more detailed assessment to again review the cost and schedule implications of replacing the Ares I with a human rated Delta IV heavy. Additionally, Aerospace was tasked to address the infrastructure, industrial base, and ground operations aspects associated with use of a human rated Delta IV heavy vehicle. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-11-2009 07:15 PM
Aerospace Corp's analysis — cost, schedule, performance and technical risk of human rating the Delta IV Heavy either match or improve upon Ares I while having tangential benefits for national security space and the US industrial base. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 08-12-2009 04:44 PM
According to the study, the change to Delta IV would save $3-6B in Delta life-cycle costs. However, it would cost an additional $1.1-3.5B in developmental costs for Ares V, with potential additional costs (some of the equipment developed for Ares I could have been adapted for Ares V). In addition, it would cost an additional $14.1-16.6B in costs for developing the Orion spacecraft, which would have to be re-worked to accommodate the changed booster. I think I read somewhere that this study did not consider projected safety margins, so that issue would have to be addressed separately. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-12-2009 06:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
...it would cost an additional $14.1-16.6B
NASA provided figures which were not independently validated via Aerospace analysis.I also see life cycle cost savings estimates for Delta IV Heavy as very conservative when assessed in the overall context of total launch systems built and delivered to the government for both commercial and national security applications. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 08-12-2009 07:57 PM
Do you think NASA is cooking the numbers? (Honest question, not trying to stir the pot.) |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-12-2009 08:41 PM
I think they are skewed given that Aerospace's involvement was initiated prior to Griffin's turnover and an independent analysis of alternatives was not conducted/offered for inclusion in the study. Consider Griffin's consistent assertion that commercial-military rockets like Delta IV could not be human-rated safely and affordability (as benchmarked against Ares), a position undermined by this study. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-12-2009 08:49 PM
The latest study by Aerospace, which this report is partly the product of, was initiated after Griffin left NASA. |
advertisement