This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

Human Rating the Atlas V

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
February 2, 2012
Filed under , , ,

United Launch Alliance Completes Critical Milestones Toward Certifying Atlas V for Human Spaceflight
“United Launch Alliance (ULA) today announced the completion of two key milestones leading toward the certification of the Atlas V launch vehicle for human spaceflight. ULA has successfully completed the third and fourth milestones of its Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) Unfunded Space Act Agreement (SAA). In December, ULA conducted a series of detailed reviews that reflected the culmination of efforts involving technical experts and representatives from NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP).”
Keith’s note: Little more than a week ago, at an campaign event with Newt Gingrich, Gingrich asked a bunch of space company reps specifically what it would take to human-rate the Atlas V and how long that would take. No one from ULA could answer. Now this press release comes out addressing that same question in detail. Odd.
Gingrich Talks About Space Policy in Florida (Update), earlier post

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

21 responses to “Human Rating the Atlas V”

  1. Todd Austin says:
    0
    0

    I invite the better-informed on this site to enlighten me.  Atlas V is both very reliable and very expensive.  Rating this launch vehicle for human transport will, presumably, make it even more expensive.

    My question is:  does this certification of Atlas V essentially represent a calculated bet that SpaceX will fail?  From all accounts, SpaceX’s costs are dramatically lower than any other provider, including, by their own admission, the Chinese.

    If SpaceX succeeds, under what conditions would anyone spend the extra $$ for a ride on top of an Atlas V?

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

      No its not a bet that SpaceX (or for that matter Orbital) will fail.

      Its a “fall back” option when SLS can’t go forward.

      In a nutshell, the EELV’s (Delta IV, Atlas V) are the default government launchers for the US. SpaceX is the current pretender/contender – unproven but with a great story.

      Too much  US national security and national interest are tied up in the EELV’s for it to be easy to mess around with them, Plus, anything you do to them makes them more costly and more unreliable. So ideally (as described here) you exhaustively prove that everything works and is qualified, then add the tiniest of additions (something that says the booster isn’t safe and why), and you thus use minimalism to allow highly common use.

      By the way, the reason for Atlas and not Delta HR is that Atlas can do this minimalistic approach and Delta cannot (RS68 engine among others had this “optimized away” decades ago). Realize also that HR on an EELV doesn’t get the certainty of more flights, just the possibility of more flights. NASA/others could walk away. Like all the commercial launches promised for the EELV years back that went elsewhere.

      SpaceX is a different story. At the moment it is obsessed with winning the COTS gambit so to have a recurring revenue stream. Should they be successful at it, the business will branch in three possible directions – crew/Dragon Lab, heavy lift with Falcon Heavy, and medium launcher “low cost leader”. It is too soon to tell anything about real cost or competitiveness.

      Atlas HR enables multiple crew launch commercial entities, so various service providers with ULA might actually bring back the commercial business long missing.

      Unfortunately it is likely that only one crew provider will be contracted by NASA. We should actually have three with one possibly turning over of the group, for the evolution of a true commercial space business longterm.

      • erioladastra says:
        0
        0

        Odd?  Not odd.  This was in work for some time, as were the other Commercial Crew press releases that have come out recently (and are coming out).  I didn’t see any comment about the Dreamchaser one or the SpaceX Launch Abort test recently noted.  Seems like you pick your facts.

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

          ?

          Yes, its been “in plan” since the early 2000’s as part of OSP / Stiedals spirals – predecessor to CxP.

          In fact the primes loss of Shuttle follow on business caused them to monkey wrench EELV HR with imaginary black zones so as to justify CxP/SLS. The office of astronaut safety was eventually eliminated when they objected to this mangling. Ask Danny Deger – his book “Houston you have a Problem” is worth reading.

          As to your paranoia related to balance, I simply don’t understand it. Sorry I can’t fit into your ala’ carte reality.

          Add:
          So you’re blaming me because you are inarticulant? Note – you can edit your posts here to make them better, more to the point.

          And I can revise mine as well to address such communications errors.

          So there’s no need for snide slams of any sort.

          Unless I got you right the first time. And, you still haven’t the foggiest … what my “biases” are.

          Grow up and use the technology.

          • erioladastra says:
            0
            0

            The “odd” was in reference to the Keith’s statement that it seemed odd that first you had Newt’s campaign and then this press release on the topic.  My point was that there was no consipiracy, the press release was in work for some time.  Nothing odd.  Just a coincidence.  Sorry but you missed my point – which I could have made mroe clear – but it didn’t call for the snide slam.  But thanks for showing your biases.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Its a “fall back” option when SLS can’t go forward.

        no one of consequence,

        I think it should be looked upon as a fall back option, no matter what. Once, again, a simple case of eggs and baskets. Right now, we don’t have a fall back option of any stripe. (Come to think of it, currently we don’t even have a go forward plan. Have you noticed that people don’t even talk about “the gap” anymore?)

        Human rating Atlas V and/or Falcon makes sense, to me, from whatever perspective you take. Designing/building either Constellation or SLS and then saying, “and we can also use this Cadillac for cargo flights,” falls apart pretty quickly when you look at the relative costs and the implementation times for the alternatives. That was the logic by which we started talking about EELVs instead of just ELVs. We’ve been saying this for years, so let’s actually startdoing it.

        In order to cut costs by using one hardware solution (or, at least, minimally different solutions) for both HSF and cargo, you start with cargo-capable hardware that is designed to be Elolvable and then evolve it as necessary; don’t start with an overkill, oversized mega-booster and then either dumb it down to cargo capabilities or throw away capability (and money) on every launch by putting a tack in the wall with a sledge hammer (which I think of a “the Shuttle fallacy”).

        If you combine the evolvability of an Atlas with the scalability of a Titan or Delta, I don’t see any reason why any and every market can’t be can’t be cost-effectively handled by upgrading EELVs (the bootstrapping concept that so many have advocated). This would also make modularity (a very effective cost and risk manager) more easily attainable.

        I see nothing to be gained by always working at the extremes — either continually reinventing the wheel or trying to use the same legacy hardware for decades. It’s a painful irony that people on one side of the room want to go ahead with the major challenges (Moon, Mars, etc.) now, using the same old technology, which just isn’t yet sufficient for the task, while the people on the other side of the room insist on scrapping all of the hard-won existing technology and planning, and starting from square one following every federal election. It would be enlightening (and no doubt very painful) to learn what percentage of NASA’s budget over the last two or three decades has been spent arguing about the diverse program choices, as opposed to what was spent actually executing programs. If all of the major decisions had been made by flipping a coin, we couldn’t be as far behind as we are in terms of what could have been accomplished by now.

        Steve

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

          Hi Steve,
          Your arguments presume pragmatism. Not justification for regional/industry spending.

          The rational for “same old technology” is to feed the same old piggies at the trough instead of any new ones – has nothing to do with merit.

          Likewise, “scrapping all of the hard-won existing technology and planning, and starting from square one”  has nothing to do with merit or pragmatism. And it even happened during Clinton and Bush presidencies in addition to the transition to Obama – OSP for example was killed because having an Orion on a man rated EELV was too great a threat to ATK/PWR/others to let stand – even to LEO only.

          Even pathetically funded X-38 was too great a threat.

          Have you noticed that people don’t even talk about “the gap” anymore?
          It was all a political invention, ironically by the people who repeatedly killed redundant HSF capability to the Shuttle – because it meant that Shuttle program conclusion might happen and they’d have no follow-on business. Its a blood sport.

          The irony here is that the BFR is really a cargo hauler idea. But for PR (and majestic cost!) made HR.

          Even with ATK, solids could be used effectively for a kick -a$$ cargo LV. But they make more HR.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            no one of consequence,

            You really got me thinking with this one. (And maybe doing too much second guessing.)

            I think, at this juncture, that you and I are either not pursuing the same vision, or simply not communicating clearly with one another. Let’s say, for the moment, that your explanation is 100% correct — explaining the motivations for an action doesn’t validate that action or excuse its consequences. I’ve never bought into the notion that “to know all is to forgive all.”

            Within the context of the NASA/Government/industry dance, explaining the motivations of the players does not justify their actions. I see explanations (and in some cases, attempted justifications) of their actions as the first step down the road to accepting those actions — i.e., that’s just the way it is. And further, performing action ABC in response to problem/requirement 37 simply because that’s the way problem-37-type problems have been handled in the past is not sufficient planning; despite all of the similar characteristics and consequences from one problem to the next, every problem is sufficiently unique to warrant a unique solution.

            I feel like you’ve been swinging more and more towards the “that’s how the game is played” crowd, but that’s hopefully just my mistaken perception in what I read. I know that I, on the other hand, have been leaning more and more toward the bite the bullet and do it right crowd. I have always refused to fly the company flag for political and/or cash in my pocket reasons, and I hope I will always keep the faith and derive solutions fitted to the requirements of each problem as it occurs. I’m not suggesting that you’re not of the same mind, but some of your more-recent responses to some of my admittedly naive-sounding statements sound, to me, like you’re advocating playing by their rules just to get ahead, or at least get action. In any situation of significance (like the space program), winning a battle by adopting unreasonable rules is not a win in my mind; I see it as a cop-out; an erosion of the foundations which underlay the essential superstructure. Once the erosion begins, the rate at which it proceeds only accelerates, and can’t be repaired at any price, once the you pass the proverbial point of no return, which American space clearly has, in my opinion.

            Does all of this mean that I’ve lost the faith, given up? No. But I have recognized that there is no business-as-usual way out of this. There has been too much lost to back-pedal or “reorganize” our way out of the hole we’ve dug. NASA, and American space overall, are going to have to lose even more (much more) than we already have in order to regain a seat at the card table. Having bought into the game once, America (and to a lesser extent, its “partners”) are going to have to ante-up again to get back into the game (and at a much larger cost than the first time around).

            There is no Control-Z with which to undo all of the mistakes that have been made, and no short-cuts or macros to bypass doing it all again. We (everyone across the board) need to face the facts: much needs to be redone, and done differently, and done for the right reasons. Space done for political reasons can only fail, again. There are a lot of clear and highly beneficial reasons for “conquering” space. And politics is not one of them. Neither is space as a jobs program on the list of valid reasons. See how well that worked last time (and the time before that, and …)

            There should be a clear list of dependencies in our space history. What missions we do in space should be a logical result of why we go to space (the real reasons, not destiny, nationalism, etc.). And likewise, the details of how we do a mission should be determined by the specific goals of each mission. But it seems there has been a disconnect, almost from the time that NACA became NASA. What we’ve done in space, as often as not, follows no logical progression, and how each mission has been conducted has been determined more by the who of a program and/or government than the logical progression of technical capabilities and/or program synergy. Program managers and politicians have had more control over events than scientists and engineers.

            It seems to me that we’re still on the same merry-go-round that we’ve been on for the last half-century with respect to why we go to space and why it’s important. No wonder it seems to so many of us that our progress in glacial. Two things are perfectly clear in my mind: 1) If we persist in playing the political/industry game, adopting their rules, we can only expect more wasted money, more funding cutbacks, more failures, more canceled programs, and more general unhappiness with all aspects of space activities across the board, particularly HSF; and 2) If we don’t get it clear in everybody’s mind (and I mean everybody!) exactly why we go to space (and with complete agreement), we’ll only get and more and more of the same disappointment that we’ve been getting for so long, with an ever-growing price tag, and it won’t matter who’s rules we play by. But playing by the NASA/Government/industry rules, as you’ve explained them, will get us to a complete dead end more quickly and with much more wasted time and money.

            Steve

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Past present future
        noofcsq
        In your ula post you broke down rocket launchers into 3 options.
        SLS Orion NASA public option PAST
        Too expensive EELV PRESENT
        Spacex   more affordable FUTURE
        Option 3 is only choice
        Bottom line if I was going to start a transportation company to build a railroad to space I couldn’t afford to use EELV Ferraris.
         
        Future
        Spacex falcon 9
        Falcon heavy cheaper more payload
        Falcon 9 fully recoverable system only gets 5 percent of its weight to LEO or less
        How can we build a recoverable system of equal cost that gets more weight to LEO per launch than a recoverable falcon9?
        Horizontal launch I think.
        Goal fly a plane to LEO and fly it back. Oviously impossible.
        But using wings jets and rockets to fly half way to LEO and then deliver a recoverable single stage to orbit is do able and affordable and safer than any vertical launch LV even if you have to give your rocket jet plane a little push from a ground launcher. If you have enough fuel to use rockets to deaccelerate it and fly it back to a safe jet controlled runway landing near the launch site. That is safer than the rocket booster landing that Spacex is attempting to do now.
        Shouldn’t someone be saying to Burt Rutan and Elon?
        Design your Strato launch BFJ to have rockets on the first stage from the start?
        Keep all humans in the sub/ or orbit rocket plane that hangs in the middle, a natural LAS system.
        Mr. Wingo you say it’s cheaper to get fuel from the moon than from earth to leo. But if the best we can do now is EELVs to get all our equipment and fuel up there to harvest the water/fuel. I fear it’s unaffordable
        Doesn’t take a rocket scientist
        PS
        Spacex’s paint job should be model T black lol
        Enough talk of which is better the horse drawn carriage or the custom horseless carriage, Spacex is trying to build the model T car. That’s our only option.
        Futurist
         
         

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Todd,

      Although I’m not among the “better-informed,” I offer a suggestion. Going ahead with Atlas V human rating, even though it is a relatively expensive option, is a good political and PR move because it is an American solution, which will make a lot of people happy.  Also, it should be achievable in a fairly short time frame relative to the other things going on, which makes for a morale boost that’s really needed right now.  And finally, it involves one of the usual pork recipients, so it perhaps makes future trade-offs more likely.

      Just some possibilities.

      Steve

  2. Dewey Vanderhoff says:
    0
    0

    Keep in mind, the Atlas V runs on a Russian  RD-180 engine  that are somewhat reworked  stateside by Pratt &  Whitney.  The RD-180 is the two chamber version of the RD-170 four chamber engine that powers the Zenit booster ( SeaLaunch, LandLaunch).  Dunno about you , but I would recommend not going with anything made in Russia these days. Their launch success rate is less than optimal of late.

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      Given RD-180 and RD-170 have a good history so far, I wouldn’t be so worried.  The problem seems to be with control systems and quality control.

      I’ve no doubt that the RD-180s are tested thoroughly by
      ULA and the control electronics are US-built so the recently-seen Russian problems shouldn’t affect Zenit or Atlas-V.

  3. Ralphy999 says:
    0
    0

    The RD-180 is mechanically reliable. A thorough inspection can help ensure that they remain so. I wouldn’t trust the Russian avionics however and I don’t think the Atlas V uses any of it.

  4. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    FWIW, I’ve long suspected that Atlas-V would be the next US crew launcher.

  5. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    I think that ULA are very aware of NASA’s sensibilities and don’t want to be seen publicly stamping on their toes.  Oh, they can get CST-100/Atlas-V flying fast, far sooner than SLS/MPCV, but they aren’t going to be seen as publicly cocking a snook at NASA.  A quiet press release is far better than telling a Presidential candidate that they are a quicker and cheaper option than the NASA ‘public option’.

  6. Frans van Hofwegen says:
    0
    0

    Better than not launching at all, I’m guessing.

  7. sch220 says:
    0
    0

    What’s so tragic is that many of us were pressing for this option in 2005 when it became apparent that the Ares approach would be fatally flawed and unsustainable. Several $ billion later, we’re where we could have been in 2006. Thank you, Michael Griffin!!

  8. CuriousWanderer says:
    0
    0

    What it would take to Human Rate Atlas is a function of how much risk NASA is willing to take, but first you need a spacecraft that is acceptably safe.  Then you need to be able to get crew into that spacecraft on the pad, which is a feature Atlas doesn’t have now. 

    If NASA were willing to accept the same risks (including loss of crew if the launch went bad) it did when it put the $2.5B Mars Science Laboratory on an Atlas last year, that’s all it would take.  You could fly as soon as the spacecraft was ready.  On a launch vehicle with a record of launches that, including its predecessors,  spans over 25 years without a catastrophic failure that would harm the crew.

     If NASA wants Shuttle-equivalent crew safety measures, that’s probably a few years in the making, but manageable with the right funding.  Something in the middle, better than Soyuz but without Shuttle-level NASA involvement, could happen sooner, but if the money’s not there you might find yourself with a commercial solution that’s just in time to launch the crew that will configure ISS for deorbit.

    That would speak very clearly to NASA’s viability as the caretaker of America’s space program.  NASA needs a strategy that leverages existing US capability to service LEO, while working on technologies that will be needed for BEO exploration (which is not the same as a jobs program for Shuttle contractors)

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Then you need to be able to get crew into that spacecraft on the pad, which is a feature Atlas doesn’t have now.

      CW,

      I think there are reasonable options for adopting the Atlas V to HSF that shouldn’t take too long or cost all that much. The most obvious option is a simple Gemini-style gantry-mounted elevator cage, such as is envisioned for the Dream Chaser. It needn’t have a white room or anything heavy-duty on top, just enough to load suited crew and portable life support.

      Steve

  9. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    ULA AND EELVs
    Star date the future not the past
    What side of the room am I on              ??
    I’m for new and Cheaper.
    That’s why I don’t like any of the proven rockets much.
    They just all cost too much for my SPACE settlement railroad building future.
    I realize that up till now rockets have shared cost with DoD and bomb death carriers and that was good for human space flight . But it’s a new day new century I want a divorce lol.
    This whole thread has been talks about the past!
    The horse and carriage days.
    It’s a new time for rockets to have their  Henry Ford age.
     Dragon is getting a PAINT JOB lol  
    PAINT it MODEL T BLACK!!!!!
    Let the old Ferraris do their DoD jobs and help a little bit but they don’t need to weight down our human Space future with their high expense.
    We need to be building a railroad to somewhere to LEO to the moon to the asteroids to Mars
    Spacex is not proven? Yes it is.  ITS cheaper!!! How much cheaper may not be known but it is CHEAPER. IT can compete!!!!
    SO the question is how do we embrace the future.
    I say in a hurry.
    The future IS SPACEX
    I may not know much about the primes NASA and congress but I sure can SEE they ALL are not helping and have had their day.
    This May sound like a joke
    But what If I said send ME 40 billion AMERICA I’ take you to the MOON and Mars. 2 billion a year for 20 years.  It would be cake.
    I would start a space transportation company with a goal of building economic rails to the sky.
    I’d  relook at LV launch just like Spacex is doing. Make it cheaper
    Look at horizontal launch harder.
    I would NOT use  Ferraris to build a railroad
     
    Steve dreams of the right thing to do . Is it possible? I don’t know. The so called public space system is not workable. The only hope is Spacex and more importantly ELON MUSKS himself. WHY? because before they /Spacex go public he is the type of guy that just may leave a lot of money on the TABLE to do it cheap and give that railroad to the heavens a fighting chance.
    And you/NASA talk about SAFETY
    I think most of that is all crap
    These EELVS have great flying records.
    Put a DARN capsule/dragon with seats and no LAS on an EELV NOW and fly the DARN things to ISS this Year! While cheaper Spacex gets up and running.
    Stop paying the Russians!
    NOOFCSQ  you see why I joke
    Because its alllllll so darn silly.
    NOOFCSQ question how much are the primes being paid to make their extremely dependable rockets “man rated”??????”?
    Well of course I can’t backup my arguments because I know so little AND I’m sure we have to game the system from a job hogging congress.
    ULA keep your old Ferraris
    I’ll take a chance on a Spacex model T any day.
    I’m a futurist now lol You are the past!
    Mr. Consequence  I have been chuckling all week about you suggesting my ideas were anywhere near a rational plan.
     PLAN?? What plan? You call that a plan? Lolol We are in more trouble than I thought!
    Doesn’t take a rocket scientistt

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      DTARS,

      Hey buddy, I think you’ve got a copy and paste hiccup. The text in your post is repeated several times. I guess you’re having the same slow response problems with Disqus as I am.

      While I’m in basic agreement with your overall approach and philosophy, I wonder if we aren’t putting too much faith in SpaceX. I’m not suggesting that they’re not up to the job, but one simple accident, or the loss of a key employee, could potentially set everything back and halt work in a Challenger/Columbia type situation. I’m certainly not anticipating such a scenario, but I think we need to give more thought to eggs and baskets. It’s like insurance, you pay the premiums and hope you never need it.

      Although there’s certainly a trade-off between retaining the vertical integration as much a possible and bringing in one or more outside contractors, it might well pay off in the event of SpaceX experiencing problems. As we all know, delayed progress payments and penalties for lateness can both reduce or even eliminate your profit margin over night, so I feel that good risk management would indicate the need for some subcontractor involvement that might help mitigate the major losses made possible by the unforeseen.

      With SpaceX as the prime and others as subcontractors, SpaceX would be able to contractually enforce that all subs use SpaceX processes and methods in fulfilling the contract(s).

      Just my thoughts on the matter.

      Steve