Commercial Spaceflight Federation Takes Aim at ASAP's Report

Commercial Spaceflight Federation Responds to the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel's Report, Commercial Spaceflight Federation

"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."."

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Releases Annual Report (PDF)

"The panel's report provides a summary of key safety-related issues the agency confronts at this time," ASAP Chairman Joseph W. Dyer said. "The most important relate to the future of the nation's human spaceflight program. Critical safety issues the panel reviewed include human rating requirements for potential commercial and international entities, extension of the shuttle beyond the current manifest, the workforce transition from the shuttle to the follow-on program, the need for candid public communications about the risks of human spaceflight, and more aggressive use of robots to reduce the risk of human exploration."


Advertise Here

6 Comments

| Leave a comment

Different people mean different things when they talk about commercial launch vehicles.

Atlas and Delta do, in fact, have a "long, proven flight record." It's reasonable to think that you might be able to mod them for human launch. They're not cheap, though-- it's not clear that you'd save money switching to ELV variants from Ares-1. (Although the Air Force would indeed benefit, since they'd have a bigger production run).

In the same sentence, however, they talk about the Falcon launch vehicle. This one does not have a "long proven flight record"-- in fact, the proposed human launch vehicle, Falcon-V, has no launch record at all.

Likewise, Taurus, to date, is a mini launch vehicle. Taurus-II (which still hasn't flown) will compete in the old Delta-2 market.

Falcon and Taurus both are going to need a lot of launches to prove that they are reliable enough for human launches. I do, in fact, have confidence that they can get there eventually. But, right now, they're not there.

(I'm a great fan of the COTS project, by the way-- let's fund them to send cargo to space station, and give them a chance to build up a success record. One step at a time.)

We need to remind ourselves that at the time the Atlas was chosen to fly the Mercury spacecraft into orbit (1959), it had a minimal flight history, too.

I don't think we'll again see anything like the vast amounts of funds that were devoted to the development of ICBMs in the crash program in the 1950s, combined with the acceptance of risk in booster development, and in early NASA.

Back then, when an Atlas blew up, the attitude was "fix the problem and fly another one next month." These days, if a NASA booster blows up, the attitude is "stop the program for 18 months and point fingers at everybody."

However-- with respect to your original comment-- Atlas rockets had flown 117 times before they were ready to launch John Glenn. I don't think any of the new booster designs are planning on demonstrating over a hundred test flights before they say they're ready launch humans.

And, Dave, their success rate was, what? About 85 percent? And how many times had the shuttle flown before it launched Young and Crippen? Zero, that's how many. My point is that so long as the commercial booster meets NASA man rating requirements, and those requirements in redundancy and reliability are not unreasonable, it will be as safe as any other launcher. Unless, of course, the bar is raised so high as never to be reachable.

I'd love it if NASA were allowed to take risks again.
But I don't think that's going to happen. Everybody ways NASA should accept risk, right up to the point where there's a failure.
The risks they took in Project Mercury could not happen in today's environment.

I find it funny/hypocritical to watch people berate NASA and trash the agency when ASAP comes out with a report that points out the agency's faults. Those same people raise a clamor that NASA "MUST" adhere to ASAP's recommendations or risk killing another seven astronauts. And then... when ASAP says that a NASA program actually IS the right way to go, those very same people trash ASAP and raise just as loud a clamor that NASA "CAN'T" follow their recommendations. So which is it folks... listen to ASAP or not? Or are we supposed to just be paraochial in our interests, ignore everything that we don't like and not even consider the whole picture? Gee, isn't that what those very same critics of NASA accused Mike Griffin of doing with ESAS? This is why I don't like people on either side of the debate.

Leave a comment



Monthly Archives

Mortgage Lead

online bingo latest online bingo game reviews, bonuses and bingo news

Play online bingo at the top bingo sites.

Interested in Space Travel, try the next best thing, name your own star.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Marc Boucher published on January 21, 2010 6:14 PM.

SpaceX Refutes Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel was the previous entry in this blog.

The Future of NASA - A Congressional Research Service Report is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



- RADWIN's broadband access enabels cellular carriers to connect users everywhere.

- Looking for great prices on Burton Snowboards? Visit PortersTahoe.com

-