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."
NASA isn't good at listening (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those O-rings had a safety factor of three!
Re: (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:5, Informative)
The "safety factor of three" was something that NASA management claimed. The O-rings would supposedly fail catastrophically if they eroded half-way through (one radius). In previous launches, the O rings had eroded only 1/3 of a radius. NASA management claimed this represented a "safety factor of three".
Feynman was very critical of that assertion. The design did not expect the O rings to erode at all. The presence of erosion meant that they had already failed, and there was no safety factor at all. It just dumb luck that there had been no disasters before Challenger.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just trying readying Feynman's experience with them.
It's really funny that you mention Feynman, because the problem he opens with in his dissenting opinion as a member of the panel which studied the Challenger accident is the exact same problem NASA management (especially Alabama's MSFC) has been having in their push of the Ares I as the "safest launch vehicle ever":
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt [nasa.gov]
It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the ...
probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The
estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher
figures come from the working engineers, and the very low figures from
management. What are the causes and consequences of this lack of
agreement? Since 1 part in 100,000 would imply that one could put a
Shuttle up each day for 300 years expecting to lose only one, we could
properly ask "What is the cause of management's fantastic faith in the
machinery?"
If a reasonable launch schedule is to be maintained, engineering
often cannot be done fast enough to keep up with the expectations of
originally conservative certification criteria designed to guarantee a
very safe vehicle. In these situations, subtly, and often with
apparently logical arguments, the criteria are altered so that flights
may still be certified in time. They therefore fly in a relatively
unsafe condition, with a chance of failure of the order of a percent
(it is difficult to be more accurate).
Official management, on the other hand, claims to believe the
probability of failure is a thousand times less. One reason for this
may be an attempt to assure the government of NASA perfection and
success in order to ensure the supply of funds. The other may be that
they sincerely believed it to be true, demonstrating an almost
incredible lack of communication between themselves and their working
engineers.
(It's also interesting to note that Feynman essentially
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That depends. If you're needing to launch a dozen or more of those billion dollar "unmanned probes" (or spy sats in the case of the military/intelligence agencies) then it may be more cost effective to self-insure by mass producing an extra one or two to compensate for a 10% failure rate instead of trying to bring the failure rate for one o
Stop with the Limbaugh bullshit already..... (Score:5, Informative)
the second one with crappy environmentally friendly tile modifications was most definitely caused by NASA management listening to environmentalist dipshits instead of the experts.
What exactly are these "tile modifications" you refer to? The fragile thermal tiles played no part in the Columbia accident, which involved a chunk of foam insulation from the external tank impacting the reinforced carbon-carbon leading edge of the orbiter's wing.
And before you try to backpedal, and trot out the old right-wing canard (originated by Rush Limbaugh) about the ET insulation foam having been reformulated without CFCs, try reading the CAIB report (volume 1, Page 51), which specifically states that the portion of the foam that broke loose was the OLD CFC-based formulation.
http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/caib/PDFS/VOL1/PART01.PDF [nasa.gov]
http://mediamatters.org/research/200508090007 [mediamatters.org]
http://www.sts107.info/kooks%20and%20myths/kooks.htm#EPA [sts107.info]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
" and trot out the old right-wing canard (originated by Rush Limbaugh)"
Limbaugh didn't originate that. That theory was put forth by a retired Lockheed engineer (before the accident investigation), and Limbaugh said it sounded likely to him. A lot of blogs picked it up too until the accident report came out.
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:Stop with the Limbaugh bullshit already..... (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Two major accidents in 30 years with an agency engaged in high risk activities. And you don't consider that a great safety record?
Just to drive the point home, while I don't recall the actual statistics, but statistically speaking, even accounting for the accidents, NASA is ahead of what their own projections indicate. In other words, even with those accidents, NASA is still beating their own projected losses.
Despite the fact everyone yawns when men are launched into orbit, rocket science is still science and at the best of times is a highly calculated crap shoot. All astronauts known this.
Re: (Score:2)
Nasa budget: 17.2 billion dollars in 2009.
US military defense: 685.1 billion in 2009
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NASA doesnt have a great safety track record any longer.
Well that's a load of shit. Can you name a space agency which regularly launches manned missions and has a significantly better safety track record?
Didn't think so.
NASA has made some stupid mistakes, that's a given. They've also had issues maintaining a good safety-culture. Those problems have lead to unnecessary deaths, and every step should be taken to ensure that they are rectified. However, with great achievements come great risks. If we're not willing to accept the fact that we WILL make mistakes
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:NASA isn't good at listening (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Where is the profit motive? Human space travel, while it does involve engineering, is really pure science of the highest order. All we're doing is asking the question "What will happen if we send a person into space?" and doing it. It's simply too expensive to be a worthwhile commercial endeavor. As such, free enterprise doesn't make sense. It's something that a purely business attitude simply cannot understand.
Now, of course what we're talking about is separating those parts that business can understand an
Re: (Score:2)
...other than we cannot truly hold other countries to the strictest standards that we all know we would impose on commercial endeavors
Sarcasm and cynicism aside, I DO prefer the companies that have worked closely with NASA for decades successfully over national programs far younger and comparatively untested. And that isn't to even mention it's a lot easier to talk when there isn't an ocean or two between you and your outsourcee.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (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 explorati
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:probably a bad idea (Score:5, Informative)
No, they don't.
Shuttle has had 134 flights, two failures. About 1.6%.
Soyuz has had 104 flights, two failures. About 2%.
Note that in both cases, the "failures" were loss of crew accidents. If we also include failures that do not cause loss of crew, Soyuz looks even worse.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they don't.
Shuttle has had 134 flights, two failures. About 1.6%.
Soyuz has had 104 flights, two failures. About 2%.
Note that in both cases, the "failures" were loss of crew accidents. If we also include failures that do not cause loss of crew, Soyuz looks even worse.
And in addition to the Shuttle's superior safety record, it has vastly greater capabilities. Soyuz is unable to go repair Hubble, for instance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:probably a bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:probably a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Challenger wasn't the worst space program disaster.
You're misrepresenting facts (Score:3, Informative)
NASA ignored all warnings from Morton Thiokol to postpone the launch.
No, they didn't. Morton-Thiokol initially recommended that NASA postpone the launch. After much debate, they decide to go offline and reanalyse the risks. (It's not clear whether NASA explicitly asked them to reconsider their recommendation, or whether it was Morton-Thiokol's own idea) Morton-Thiokol came back and told NASA they'd determined it would be okay to launch after all. NASA then acted upon Morton-Thiokol's recommendation.
Morton-Thiokol management ignored warnings from Morton-Thiokol engineers
Re: (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
Re:probably a bad idea (Score:5, Informative)
For all of their "caution", the following two incidents happened and come immediately to mind:
The Challenger Disaster [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster [wikipedia.org]>The Columbia Disaster
In the first, they launched in adverse conditions that aggravated a design flaw in the solid fuel booster's design that caused the Challenger to blow up as it ascended into orbit. The design flaw was approved by that "crazy-careful" NASA and the launch was approved by the same, over concerns about the design and the conditions by the subcontractor for the engines. If you saw the high-level design drawings for the sealing system they chose to use in the Space Shuttle booster (the most powerful solid fuel booster developed to date at that time...) when compared against the design they chose to use with the Titan II boosters they added to the Gemini program rockets, you'd see that they cheapened the design in the Shuttle booster- with a vastly more powerful booster. Couple that with conditions that would almost guarantee the failure we saw- and an insistence to launch when NASA knew there was a solid chance of this sort of failure- there's nothing "crazy-careful" in that mix.
In the second, they switched an insulation design for the central fuel tank from one that relied on CFCs (good thing...) without verifying that there might be a problem with it coming off on launch and damaging the fragile ceramic heat shield tiles on the shuttle (bad thing...). The testing applied to the new insulation foam wasn't given as extensive a run of verification as the old stuff was, which led to the eventual issue. No checks of potential damage on the critical heat shield were done- not that they could have repaired the damage or easily got the crew back in one piece if they'd found out that they were in trouble there. No major accounting for damaged heat shield sections or planning for a detected problem (in the form of another shuttle on a rescue mission...) had ever really been done. Again, there's nothing "crazy-careful" in that mix.
In the end, the only reason we've had the track record we have had with NASA in the Shuttle era of the agency has been that there've been few runs at things. Yes, in the past, NASA was crazy-careful, but that was more around the Apollo era of things. They're not so careful these days- else the two incidents wouldn't have transpired the way they did. In the first, they'd have scrubbed the mission for another day, which would have prevented the disaster altogether. In the second, had it happened with the people's attitudes during the Apollo 13 timeframe, they would've done a once-over of the shuttle visually either with monitoring gear or via EVA to ensure the integrity of the shuttle. They would have had contingencies for damage of the nature that happened- and had a backup plan for the crew if they couldn't repair the same. NASA's gotten to where they're probably only slightly better than the commercial interests in safety because they're well under budget (which is why they're trying desperately to keep it all in-house if possible; they can justify what they've got right now- if they outsource, the budget shrinks on them even further...) and they're operating more as a political org instead of an engineering driven one like it used to be. That's not to say they don't have good people and some of the best and brightest- but to characterize them as being vastly better on safety than the commercial interests because they're not going to cut corners, etc. is wrong and mistaken at best.
Re: (Score:2)
It's difficult to compare the 2 eras because the budgets are drastically different (10:1?). But the documentation reqmts and presence of safety & QA are substantially more since Apollo.
They would have had contingencies for damage of the nature that happened- and had a backup plan for the crew if they couldn't repair the same.
What was that contingency plan they used for Apollo 13 when they didn't have suf
Re:probably a bad idea (Score:5, Informative)
In the second, they switched an insulation design
The insulation that fell off and hit the wing was still the old insulation [sts107.info].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Except the rocket scientists and engineers mostly work for Lockheed Martin and Boeing and other private corporations, who actually build the vehicles and subsystems.
We should stick with NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because their bureaucracy has done such an excellent job in the last 35 years of getting us back to the moon, to Mars, etc
You must not have been paying attention. We have the Hubble, and now we have the new telescope that will put Hubble to shame. We have robots on Mars, which I would argue is far better than having human feet there. We have satellites around Mars, Venus, and iinm Mercury. We have the robot in space that looks for gamma ray bursts. We've had the Voyagers and myriad other deep space probes c
Re: (Score:2)
This just in....Monopolies do not like competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit (Score:2)
It is just standard politics...
Government agencies doesn't like Companies doing what they do. They portrait a company as a greedy organization who will cut all the corners and create a product that is doomed to fail.
Companies doesn't like Government taking over what they do. They Portrait the government as a huge inefficient bureaucracy who will spend more then what they need and make compromise over compromise until you have a bad product which doesn't do anything well.
So in the end Your screwed both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had to go to space, I would rather go with Boeing or Lockheed Martin that with NASA.
Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit (Score:5, Informative)
Are you kidding me? I would pay to be first, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Translation (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody offered us a bribe.
Panel is blinkered... (Score:2)
private space companies rely on "unsubstantiated claims" and need to overcome major technical hurdles before they can safely carry astronauts into orbit.
That's true enough. Why let private companies blow your astronauts up when you can get the government to do it for you for many times the cost?
NASA: the best astronaut-killing rockets that money can buy!
"Probably not cost effective" (Score:2, Troll)
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.
Because we all know a government run monopoly is the most cost effective means of doing something.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we all know a government run monopoly is the most cost effective means of doing something.
I wouldn't exactly call it a government run monopoly. I mean, they aren't using unfair business practices to keep others from entering into the space arena. And I doubt you're factoring in the cost of training the astronauts. It's not cheap. Better to spend the extra money on transport and have a better understood risk than to go with a private company.
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.
The profit motive... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When considering survival in a limited-edition experimental craft, the first step may be to avoid riding a limited-edition experimental craft into the most dangerous place there is.
Just sayin'...
Re: (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:The profit motive... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then don't drive a car. FYI: They were made by for-profit companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately for you, I don't think anyone is ever going to ask to go for the ride. And if cheap commercial space flight gets shoved in the attic, I don't think any of your children will get the chance to say no either.
But if we're going to let people try to climb Everest, go cave diving, and test experimental aircraft, I don't see why we need to go nuts with space safety, assuming there are plenty of people eager to take the risk. I mean, trying to be super careful hasn't even worked--to this day we st
Re: (Score:2)
If their failure rate is high, they won't get very many launches before NASA says enough and stops buying from them. The best way to maximize profit is with more launches, launches that will only take place if certain safety requirements are met. In the meantime, you do realize that NASA gets paid to put commercial satellites into orbit right? And that they have a limited budget, tight time-tables, and various government offices breathing down their necks?
Two words to the federal panel... (Score:5, Informative)
Shut up.
Deregulating space travel is the only way we're ever going to make a dent there, for the time being and with the current political climate.
Please, just shut up. Yes, a few are going to die going up, but they know the risks.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really all that "regulated" you know. Relatively little regulation is stopping you from building a spacecraft on your own and flying yourself to the moon. The main regulations you have to follow are actually FAA regs for atmospheric flight. NASA actually uses private companies for some satellite launches.
Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_spaceflight [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, perhaps "regulating" was the incorrect word -- I guess I looking more for "decentralizing." I have nothing wrong with government projects -- I do have a problem with government-only projects.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because there ARE risks doesn't mean we shouldn't try to lower them. From an institutional point of view, deaths put any operation on hold longer than almost anything else. If you want to get there, make it safe; ain't nobody gonna go to space if dying has to actually be considered.
Re: (Score:2)
"ain't nobody gonna go to space if dying has to actually be considered."
The people who deserve to go will brave the risk and move things forward, no one else matters. So what if the timid don't go early?
Cowards can stay on the ground.
easy : Allow it for the private citizens (Score:2)
Allow licenses for trips into space for private citizens via private corporations. Those who can afford it would fund the cost to get it done. In the quest to standardize and get more travelers, the cost would go down. Possibly low enough to be cost effective that NASA would then transition to the best provider.
Space Privateers (Score:2)
Privatizing the other aerospace operations of the government, mainly war, has become so economical and reliable that we now have $billions extra for space exploration. Aerospace contractor corporations like Lockheed Martin [google.com] and Boeing [google.com] never overcharge the government. Their aircraft are more reliable than the NASA vehicles that crash once or twice every several thousand launches at the cutting edge of engineering.
What could possibly go wrong?
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,
Hatch Act (Score:2)
NASA clingeth mightily to its rice bowl... (Score:3, Interesting)
NASA clingeth mightily to its rice bowl...
IMO it's time to offload manned missions and stick to actually _exploring_ space with probes and rovers and other remote-manned tech. Manned missions have created a burden that sucked other programs dry, but the lust of those who want to play in space can make commercial outfits viable.
We don't _need_ people in space before we perfect exploring it with the remote-controlled systems we absolutely require anyway to interact with an utterly hostile environment. Development cycles for remotely-manned vehicles can be much shorter (avoids the decades-long burden of old Shuttle tech) allowing "launch early, launch often".
The last thing i want (Score:4, Funny)
is more commercialization of our institutions and cultural artifacts. The next step after letting Boeing shuttle our astronauts would be renaming the ISS as "The Tostidos Space Station". Next would be Cape Coca-cola. The Nike rocket would at least be somewhat apropos to the tiny crowd who knows something of aerospace history and mythology.
The Astronaut's wife argument.... (Score:2)
Having commercially outsourced spaceflight is good for the astronauts's wife as she can sue the crap off of the private company after blowing up her husband than she could a "blameless government entity".
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'.
Elon Musk's Rebuttal (Score:2, Informative)
The New Kids Fire Back (Score:3, Informative)
Full article: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30060 [spaceref.com]
Among points I picked up on myself, they point out that since there are no existing standards for them to follow for building human rated craft, they claim that none of them have experience doing so is non sequitor. They politely don't point out that the sole existing man rated spacecraft has had two fatal failures, though they'd also have to admit it's experimental, not commercial, even though built by human rated aircraft corporations.
Even more politely, when ASAP makes the statement that the commercial start ups hoping to carry people are making unsubstantiated claims, they do reply that since they haven't built the hardware yet to test it, and only have stated intentions, it's hardly a valid criticism but don't resort to the sorely needed "DUH!".
ASAP has done a creditable job when it came to criticizing their own work. That is, the BigAero members cooperated fully when investigating problems. But as far as dealing a blow to commercial startups, TFA is so full of FUD that NASA can only take it and leave it or risk being seen being led around by the corporate welfare milk teat.
FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation, and more recently Commerce's Office of Space Commercialization, have been plowing full speed ahead to clear the way for the new guys just as much as the big ones. When multibillion dollar corporations get scared enough to "warn" NASA, things are probably going to get interesting. I thought they were interesting enough the year Rutan won the X-prize, because half the licenses for commercial launches issued that year by FAA/AST had his name on them.
Some great rebuttals (Score:3, Funny)
Clark Lindsay:
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=17960 [hobbyspace.com]
This is ridiculous from beginning to end. Even with optimum funding, the Ares I won't fly for at least 5 years and probably not for 7 or 8 years. So how has it demonstrated or substantiated any capability or superiority? Citing the Ares I-X flight is absurd. That vehicle had virtually nothing in common with Ares I. Griffin's quick and dirty 60 day ESAS hardly sets a standard for optimized design.
It is in fact the panel that is speculating as to the ultimate safety of the Ares I. It will be so expensive to operate, it will never fly enough times to accumulate sufficient flights to prove any statistical prediction of its safety.
And by the way, why is a safety panel making judgments about cost-effectiveness? Even if COTS-D were funded, Falcon 9/Dragon will involve about 100 times less NASA funding than Ares I/Orion. Yes, the latter is designed for deep space but that should not require 100 times more money. The F9/Dragon operating costs will also be a fraction of that for Ares I/Orion. Ignoring such cost differences would be considered not just "unwise" but ridiculous by most taxpayers.
The panel further speculates on the degree of safety of the COTS designs, which really refers to Falcon 9/Dragon since Orbital has made no move to develop a crew capability for Taurus II/Cygnus. There's no indication that the panel made any effort to investigate the statements from SpaceX that the F9/Dragon system has been designed from the beginning to meet NASA's human rating requirements (at least to the degree that the company could determine those requirements). With such enormous cost savings at stake, you might think the panel would want to know if it could be built with high margins.
Commercial Spaceflight Federation:
http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/?p=1058 [commercial...flight.org]
The ASAP's repeated references to the two "COTS firms" ignores the fact that many companies, including both established firms and new entrants, will compete in the Commercial Crew Program envisioned by the Augustine Committee. While the Falcon 9 and Taurus II vehicles have already met numerous hardware milestones and will have a substantial track record by the time any astronauts are placed onboard, several other potential Commercial Crew providers envision use of launch vehicles such as the Atlas V, vehicles that are already entrusted by the government to launch multi-billion dollar national security payloads upon which the lives of our troops overseas depend.
Despite the ASAP Report's contention that commercial vehicles are "nothing more than unsubstantiated claims," the demonstrated track records of commercial vehicles and numerous upcoming manifested cargo flights ensure that no astronaut will fly on a commercial vehicle that lacks a long, proven track record. The Atlas V, for example, has a record of 19 consecutive successful launches and the Atlas family of rockets has had over 90 consecutive successes, and dozens of flights of the Atlas, Taurus, and Falcon vehicles are scheduled to occur before 2014 in addition to successful flights already completed.
Further, thirteen former NASA astronauts, who have accumulated a total of 42 space missions, stated in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed that commercial spaceflight can be conducted safely:
"We are fully confident that the commercial spaceflight sector can provide a level of safety equal to that offered by the venerable Russian Soyuz system, which has flown safely for the last 38 years, and exceeding that of the Space Shuttle. Commercial transportation systems using boosters such as the Atlas V, Taurus II, or Falcon 9 will have the advantage of multiple unmanned flights to build a track record of safe operations prior to carrying humans. These vehicles are already set
Re:Bad bad idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bad bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
.. ( )
.(o)(o)
.. ) (
.. (Y)
I know, I know...
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm sorry what you said doesn't hold. NASA comes up with requirements and specifications. Words, sentences, numbers etc. Contractors then work from those and build the REAL stuff. Sure they review (ad nauseum) things with NASA along the way, but the Contractors are designing and building almost everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: You'll find the civil servants are in the minority and the contractors are doing a lot of (most of?) the work. NASA takes a largely managerial role. Nothing special about them other than the color of their bad
Re: (Score:2)
If they are talking about companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing, then yes I think this is a bad idea. but if they are talking about new unknown companies, then I can't blame them for being cautious. Going to space is no small endeavor, its not like just putting a sign on your car and creating a cab company.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Little experience?
Apollo CM/SM: North American Aviation, now part of Boeing.
Space Shuttle Orbiter: See above.
LEM: Grumman Aircraft Engineering, ackquired by Northrop to form Northrop Grumman.
Who do you think built the crafts that were used so far? NASA itself? Consider: They worked, mostly.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me premise this with the statement that I am making an assumption, IF NASA has gone the way that most of the defence industry has,
then over last three to four decades they have been outsourcing more and more of their resources. This means the the agency itself has
probably shrunk to nothing more than the program managing guys who do the high level planning and review. The actual in the feild grunt
design engineers or manufacturing techs are all probably private industry contractors.
Its the direction the
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. NASA decides what the craft has to do, then they ask for submissions. It works like most governmental projects, they don't care how, they just care that something is done. You have this kind of procedure in pretty much all governmental projects, from defense to spacecraft to databases. You get a (more or less...) detailed project description, what the finished product should do, what specs it has to comply with and then you're supposed to give them a study and a design. If they approve, you can start
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, NASA doesn't design the craft then just issue requirements and specs. The contract companies then build the crafts.
You are wrong. Continuing to post over and over again how NASA designs everything and the private companies are just putting stuff together isn't going to make you correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Watch From the Earth to the Moon, or at least the "Spider" episode (about the design and production of the Apollo Lunar Module). You will understand the process more closely, and lose some negativity about those companies taking over.
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: (Score:2, Informative)
That's not the way it works. NASA specifies operational requirements. Engineers (many of whom may be NASA support contractors, not government employees) then translate those into technical requirements that are used as the basis for a competitive procurement. The winning bidder is responsible for the hard engineering, manufacturing, integration and initial testing. NASA from that point on acts, as has been mentioned here, as a program manager making sure that things like cost, schedule and performance r
Re: (Score:2)
Nahh... Probably something more along the lines of this [project-apollo.net]...
Re: (Score:2)