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

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Has Commercial Crew Concerns

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
January 17, 2014
Filed under , ,

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Annual Report for 2013
“In an effort to devise a program that fits within available funding, the CCP is requesting proposals to develop a new system to transport humans into space by means of a fixed-price contract and source selection crite- ria that cause some within the space flight community to worry that price has become more important than safety. Competition between two or more CCP contractors potentially fosters improved attention to safety. However, the ability to sustain a competitive environment may fall victim to further funding shortfalls.”

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

7 responses to “Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Has Commercial Crew Concerns”

  1. John Kavanagh says:
    0
    0

    In the year 2021, after spending $34 billion of Exploration funds on SLS+MPCV+Ground, I’m sure that NASA’s first crewed Orion flight on the Space Launch System will foster more attention to safety, and will remain safer than commercial crew providers as the Space Launch System flight tempo continues at a bi-annual frequency through the 2020s. It would be less safe for NASA to perform human spaceflight on other launch vehicles that fly multiple times a year, have had done so for over a decade sooner than SLS, such as the Atlas, Delta and Falcon systems.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      What type of abort system does Orion have, push or pull? Orions requires dangerous ejection. Tack on another 5 years and 15 billion dollars to develop a push system like Spacex.

      Oh, launch your heavy junk in a non human rated vehicle and save several billion.

      Leave the human rated flying to commercial crew, to the ones that will have most of the human flight experience.

      • John Kavanagh says:
        0
        0

        “We have no experience with a human-rated flight system [SLS] that only flies every two or three or four years.” – Steven Squyres, chairman of the NASA Advisory Council

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      I would imagine that this is sarcasm and satire. If so, it’s very effective as it does capture the essential logical disconnect of many of those who insist against all engineering logic that SLS/Orion is somehow inherently safer.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Suckered me John

        Simple logic doesn’t seem to be the norm here.

        Most of the time it seems more like people squabbling over their religion, justifying what they already believe. (Or in their interest)
        I don’t know how many times I have tried to make a joke only to be taken seriously.
        Thanks for the help Ben

  2. Paul451 says:
    0
    0

    “that cause some within the space flight community to worry”

    Name them. Who are they? That are their interests? If the authors can’t, then they don’t really exist.

    This is politicians’ code for either “I believe, but don’t want to admit…” (or more commonly “I was paid to say this, but don’t want to admit…”)

    “Some believe…” “Voters in my district are telling me…” “Ordinary Americans/etc feel…” “Some within the space flight community worry…” Blah.

    [And yes, I get the irony of a pseudonymous troll on the interwebz demanding transparency…]

  3. BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
    0
    0

    Doesn’t matter what they say. SpaceX in conjunction with NASA will continue to bite off the milestones and demonstrate safety rather than just talking about it. SDs plus parachutes. Much safer than simply tower-style LAS. Obsolete tech.
    SpaceX have from day one, identified where the hazards and failures are on launch vehicles, engines, avionics, separation events, and so on, and unlike other companies have designed for both safety and cost.
    Results speak for themselves. They should historically speaking, have had an F9 launch failure by now. They haven’t even though they lost an M1C engine on an early flight. Now they’re on to M1Ds which they claim are simpler and more reliable together with what is essentially a new vehicle F9v1.1.