Panel Warns NASA On Commercial Astronaut Transport 319
DesScorp writes "In a blow against the commercial space industry, a federal panel warned NASA not to use private companies to ferry astronauts into space. While the Obama Administration wants to outsource some NASA activities, insiders at the space agency are resisting any moves to use commercial alternatives. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel 'cautioned that the private space companies rely on "unsubstantiated claims" and need to overcome major technical hurdles before they can safely carry astronauts into orbit. The report urged NASA to stick with its current government-run manned space ventures, and said that switching to private alternatives now would be "unwise and probably not cost-effective." The findings are likely to provide a boost to NASA officials who want to keep nearly all manned space programs in house.' Private companies such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing argue that they're capable of human transport in space safely and at competitive costs."
How is it different (Score:5, Insightful)
than paying another country to take our astronauts into space?
I see no difference, other than we cannot truly hold other countries to the strictest standards that we all know we would impose on commercial endeavors
probably a bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things, and how any private company is going to cut every possible corner, yes it'll save a bundle, and kill a bunch of astronauts in the process.
All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible. Rocket science really is rocket science. If you're not spending that money, you have to expect your safety to go to hell.
We should stick with NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
This just in....Monopolies do not like competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody offered us a bribe.
Re:probably a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't know enough about space flight to form a rational opinion for or against commercial ferrying.
Re:probably a bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)
(because airplanes drop left and right because boeing wanted to save costs on wind materials ... not)
Faced with how much dead astronauts would cost em, they would definitelly not cut every possible corner.
One thing is saving few bucks by using X instead of Y, another having crash-reputation and having to pay-off families of deceased and/or cost of cargo.
Anyhow, being you, I would really reconsider "All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible" statement anyway. They most certainly are not spending those money on that, that is given by fact that is is goverment agency responsible for quite nice funds, funds that friends of people who are in charge of them could do with even if they offer slightly wrose product.
The profit motive... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bad bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Beyond that, the rockets used to launch people into space are usually not the same as those used for satellite launches, limiting the usability of that equipment for other purposes.
Re:The profit motive... (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, because it is so profitable to be known as a company that kills your passengers. On another note, who are you recommending to do it then, because it seems that the people at NASA are thinking about covering thier ass, not about keeping the astronauts alive.
Re:NASA isn't good at listening (Score:3, Insightful)
Those O-rings had a safety factor of three!
Re:NASA isn't good at listening (Score:1, Insightful)
While the first one with the O-ring maybe was simply tragic, the second one with crappy environmentally friendly tile modifications was most definitely caused by NASA management listening to environmentalist dipshits instead of the experts.
First one was simply tragic? Wasn't the first one a result of NASA management ignoring what Morton Thiokol engineers said regarding launches in freezing temperatures? They had to get the first teacher into space and a delay would have been embarrassing. So they opted to not have a delay and they had a tragedy instead.
Re:Bad bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't think that only NASA does design, and contractors just do manafacturing, the relationship is much more complex, with good engineers on both sides of the table. NASA does not have a monopoly on good engineers, or even a monopoly on engineers with a good track record.
Also, knock it off with the monospaced font. If people wanted to read things that way, they'd have configured their browsers that way. As it is, you just come off as an attention whore who feels the need to artificially attract attention to his posts.
The same Boeing that 'built' the border fence?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Boeing also said that they could build a virtual fence on the Mexican border in 3 years and for $1Billion. 5+ years later, the $1 Billion is gone, the virtual fence covers 26 miles, and it doesn't work! Defense contractors need to be held to higher standards, and not granted any cost-plus contracts,
Re:The profit motive... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then don't drive a car. FYI: They were made by for-profit companies.
Re:NASA isn't good at listening (Score:5, Insightful)
Two major accidents in 30 years with an agency engaged in high risk activities. And you don't consider that a great safety record?
If anything people at NASA are almost definitely erring on the side of excessive caution knowing what kind of backlash they'll get from the ignorant masses if anything more goes wrong.
Re:How is it different (Score:2, Insightful)
This *IS* ROCKET SCIENCE. We should not be taking chances with private companies that will transport people at a "competitive cost."
They can't get plans to fly on-time, why do you think they can handle space travel!!
Re:NASA isn't good at listening (Score:2, Insightful)
Those O-rings had a safety factor of three!
When used at the proper temperatures, which they weren't. A private company wouldn't have used them in the same situation because of the liability involved.
Re:NASA isn't good at listening (Score:4, Insightful)
Although I can see some benefit to keeping this under government control, here we are 40 years later, using the same basic technologies while lacking the same capabilities that put us on the moon. It seems that the only thing that's happened at NASA in the last 50 years is a lot of money has been spent. We have the shuttle, based on a hybrid of flight end propulsion technologies during that time, but it's old, dated, and long past it's prime. Is there any reason NASA can't certify the safety of such after it's submitted by the private sector?
I can't help but wonder if it's time to let the private sector in. Some competitiveness, innovation, and new blood are what's needed right now, not NASA.
Re:"Probably not cost effective" (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we all know a government run monopoly is the most cost effective means of doing something.
My power company, CWLP [cwlp.com], is a government run monopoly, owned by the city of Springfield. We have the cheapest electricity in the state, and and the most reliable power.
In March, 2006 two F-2 tornados (almost F-3s) tore through Springfield [slashdot.org] and completely destroyed the electrical infrastructure in my neighborhood and a lot of other neighborhoods. There wasn't a single unbroken utility pole, nor a single wire that didn't touch the ground. The transformers were all on the ground, on roofs, and in trees. They had to completely rebuild, and my power was back on in a week.
Later that spring a single weak F-1 went through the St Louis area. I visited a friend in Cahokia on the Illinois side of the river, served by the private power company Amerin three weeks later, and the only evidence that there had been a tornado at all was that my friend's power was still out.
Amerin is my natural gas company, and their customer service is abysmal. CWLP's customer service is for the most part excellent. The reason is, if I'm unhappy with my electrical service I'm liable to vote against the Mayor next election, but if I'm unhappy with my gas service there's absolutely nothing I can do; it's not like I can get another gas company.
If you have choices, the free market works well. With a monopoly there is no free market, and you are far better served by it being a government monopoly.
Re:probably a bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)
for some reason astronaut Dr. Leroy Chiao thinks differently "Soyuz has a very special place in my heart. It is a robust, capable spacecraft and launcher. It has the best-demonstrated safety record of any manned spacecraft. And, it just feels hearty."
why could that be
Re:NASA isn't good at listening (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How is it different (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem that would be solved by paying other countries to fly missions is that we overvalue astronauts to the point where protecting them has made _using_ them prohibitive.
We cheerfully drive cars that kill tens of thousands in the US every year, and accept lots of other deathy/woundy/cripply outcomes as the cost of doing business. We can do that with astronauts if we get NASA and government out of manned launches thus ending public expectations of perfection.
All pre-astronaut models of Terran exploration understood that people are cheap and wrote off lots of them. The bravery of those who succeeded met with public praise, a reasonable reward for the right sort of fellow. We forget the legacy test pilots, but those guys knew the risk, thrived when challenged, and accomplished great things. Get manned missions out of NASA, use NASA for science instead of tourism, and learn about the universe instead of wasting limited resources.
I'd say 25% genuine (Score:5, Insightful)
"...private space companies rely on "unsubstantiated claims" and need to overcome major technical hurdles before they can safely carry astronauts into orbit..."
Of COURSE they warn that.
They are bloated bureaucrats who are trembling at the idea of the free market possibly threatening their sinecure.
Look, we ALL know that space travel is dangerous. (NASA doesn't exactly have a 100% safety record EITHER...) Personally, I think the private industry space travel isn't quite ready for prime-time either, and that could be a basis for a sincere warning being issued by NASA. But that industry isn't going to see any reason to invest and improve if space travel remains locked in as a government-only business.
OTOH, it's more likely that you have an entrenched bunch of government employees that don't like the sound of the word 'competition'.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stop with the Limbaugh bullshit already..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I noticed that shortly after I posted that I used the wrong word there. Limbaugh didn't actually ORIGINATE this particular bullshit story, he simply drew upon his presumably vast knowledge of polymer chemistry and aerospace manufacturing techniques to lend creedence to an unsubstantiated claim made by one of his guests. After all, if it makes environmentalists look bad, then "it sounded likely" to Mr. Limbaugh.
His legions of dittohead followers then picked up on the story and gave it so much traction that it repeatedly surfaces to this day in most discussions of the Columbia accident.
Nothing like using the tragic deaths of 7 astronauts to advance your own career and political agenda. The man is a true douchenozzle.
Re:NASA isn't good at listening (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:NASA isn't good at listening (Score:2, Insightful)
Then get private investors and go! No one is holding you!
For Pete's sake, ALL Nasa wants to avoid is buying shit from people they don't know with questionable track record, to launch astronauts under NASA's own name and at NASA's liability. Who's funding is questioned when the private companies rocket blows up? Yes, it's NASA. Why? Because the private company can just fold up after they've cut corners.
I'm all for private companies launching things. But they haven't launched shit with their own stuff into orbit yet. The first stop for a company to be certified reliable is to have their design function in the field for number of years. That means launching things. They should be happy to ferry supplies and other non-critical components until their track record matches their egos.
And no, I'm not talking about Boeing or Lockheed. They *have* a track record. And even then they fuck up (see Genesis with upside down accelerometer and then NASA got the blame).
There is a lucrative unmanned space business. That's where these new companies should compete.
Re:probably a bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:NASA isn't good at listening (Score:3, Insightful)
If we privatise space flight that means less taxes ... NASA should just provide funding via Grants/Loans/etc.
And what's going to be the source of the money for those grants and loans?
If we privatize space travel to the ISS (which is really what this is about), NASA and your tax dollars (along with Russian and European tax dollars) will still be paying for it. Heck, it's not like NASA's own spacecraft are built in-house by government employees. You're still talking about dealing with government contractors; you'll just be outsourcing the project management that NASA used to do. It may or may not be cheaper, but don't pretend you'll be handing spaceflight over to the magical free market. The government will be paying these private companies with your tax dollars.
Re:Stop with the Limbaugh bullshit already..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:NASA isn't good at listening (Score:2, Insightful)