Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel: Lack of Transparency in Commercial Space
Safety panel accuses NASA of a ‘lack of transparency’ in critical space program, Washington Post
“NASA’s independent safety panel accused the agency of a “lack of transparency” about its program to hire commercial space companies to fly astronauts to the International Space Station, saying the opacity could create increased safety risks. In its annual report to Congress, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel said the lack of communication about critical safety measures “has been a concern for a number of years.” And it made it impossible for the panel “to offer any informed opinion regarding the adequacy of the certification process or the sufficiency of safety” in what is known as the “commercial crew” program. The “failure to engage in open and transparent communication is reminiscent of the problems” surrounding the causes of the fatal Challenger and Columbia space shuttle disasters, according to the report released Wednesday.”
ASAP 2014 Annual Report
As a NASA employee, I can fully understand the thoughts that are going through most of the engineers heads. Most of the problem is caused by SpaceX and Elon Musk endlessly boasting that they can do everything NASA can except cheaper and faster. So most people respond – “…go ahead, do it, without NASA help, lets see how you do on your own.” The result is that not a single SpaceX launch has been on schedule and development of the vehicles is slipping every day.
But that is just my opinion.
Do you have the slightest evidence that NASA employees are deliberately not performing their duties? What are their names? They must be immediately reported to the IG for immediate investigation.
Your claims should also be forwarded to the ASAP so they may take action.
You are levying serious charges against NASA employees responsible for the safety of US astronauts.
Please supply a contact email address so that I can connect you with the appropriate authorities so these people can be dealt with.
Like I said, it is only my opinion.
You’ve got to be joking! The OIG is the agency’s vassal.
Mr. Musk has been effusive and unrelenting in his praise of NASA, and in stating that he is standing on the shoulders of giants– which, if you work for NASA, includes you. Mr. Bigelow has said the same thing on numerous occasions.
American Aerospace is heavily populated at every level by example-NASA.
(See Don Huntsman below, far better point of view than mine).
Yes, Mr Musk frequently reiterates that his work stands on the shoulders of giants but he has yet to acknowledge the current workers of NASA and and all the experience they bring to the table.
I prefer Mr. Musk to spend his time on what he’s doing rather than spend it on cheer-leading you guys.
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
I don’t SpaceX claims they can do *everything* NASA does, or can do, faster and cheaper. They do claim they can do some things faster and cheaper, so look closely at what they are doing.
Part of this is keeping requirements to a minimum on their launch vehicles and capsules. Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, commercial cargo, and commercial crew all have relatively simple requirements when compared to SLS/Orion. I have no doubt that SLS/Orion has requirements creep simply because there is *no* funded mission for SLS/Orion. Even the easiest of missions, the asteroid retrieval mission, is being met with tepid support. Because of this it becomes hard to fight requirements creep because you *might* need this or that requirement sometime in the future.
One of the biggest reasons the space shuttle was so expensive is because it was such a flexible, capable vehicle. It had to be all things to all people including a launch vehicle, crewed vehicle, airlock, cargo launch vehicle, cargo return vehicle, and supply the infrastructure of a mini-space station to whatever payload was in the bay (power, life support, cooling, and etc.). Such vehicles are much more expensive to build and operate compared to a purpose built cargo vehicle or a purpose built crew capsule.
THE ASAP report had SLS and Orion also in their crosshairs.
A “RED” audit point in the report:
Risk transparency, especially regarding explicitly accepted, unmitigated risk, is paramount to the management of NASA’s space flight–associated activities. Risk communication concerning commercial crew activities by the Director of Commercial Spaceflight Development has been less than forthcoming. Because Probabilistic Risk Assessment results provide a risk assessment of the design capability at maturity, actual risks for early operations of the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion could be significantly higher than the calculated or “advertised” risk. Because the perception of external stakeholders is vitally important, NASA’s Office of Communications
must be cautious not to create or reinforce inaccurate perceptions of risk.
Yeah, it’s odd that only their comments on Commercial Crew have been reported, not their much more serious complaints about SLS/Orion’s safety.
The criticism of CCP mangers seems to be a failure of the panel to adapt to a new type of program; with information not being delivered when demanded simply because it didn’t exist yet or was bound by CCtCap confidentially clauses (and later the legal challenge). Whereas the criticism of SLS/Orion seems to be a concern that the program(s) managers don’t understand the risk factors and/or deliberately underestimate risk.
Not sure I agree. The ASAP statement on CCP sounds like the program is not providing information. How is that a failure of ASAP? They are chartered to independently review NASA’s programs. If the program won’t supply the data, they can’t do their job.
My read on the statement about SLS/Orion probabilistic risk assessment is that the model may be too optimistic. I think you are making an unfair accusation that the program managers may be deliberately underestimating risk. If you think anyone that is managing a vehicle development program would intentionally put astronauts lives at risk, you don’t have a clue.
My explanation was in the comment you replied to: “with information not being delivered when demanded simply because it didn’t exist yet or was bound by CCtCap confidentially clauses (and later the legal challenge).”
Ie, it’s likely that the CCP managers didn’t refuse to cooperate, they simply weren’t in a position to provide information when demanded by the panel and they tried to explain that to the panel. Instead of understanding that, the panel got snippy.
The report says requested documents were delivered in December, “too late to appear in this year’s report”. Okay, fair enough, you don’t have enough time to issue an assessment of what was provided. Just say that.
A failure to understand (or, it appears, to even attempt to understand) the restrictions the CCP managers were operating under.
If ASAP made a requests for new information after the CCiCap milestones had been issued, the CCP managers couldn’t make significant changes to compel the participants to provide new information not already required under CCiCap. The first opportunity for the CCP managers to ask for that specific information would have been for the bids for CCtCap round. However, during the bidding process, that information would have been confidential, during the legal challenge sub judice. So only after everything had been finalised could the CCP managers give that information to ASAP. It was literally the earliest opportunity.
ASAP clearly failed to make any attempt to understand that. It’s likely that they will continue to fail to understand the nature of the program, and their reports about the program will therefore continue to be useless.
[“Useful” might have been to note the difficult position the CCP managers were in. To explain why the information couldn’t be provided and to propose changes to how future similar programs are set up in order to make it easier for program managers to be able to work with ASAP at an earlier stage.
For example, for ASAP to develop a simple standard set of information for all new programs, which any managers can attach to the very first request-for-bid requirements. (That way, ASAP doesn’t have to wait until a program is established to ask specific questions about that program, too late for the managers to include in the first RfB process.)
Then, a way for ASAP and program managers to work out the timing of when ASAP can ask for new information specific to a program. Ie, a simple way for program managers to inform ASAP of future “windows” when new requests for information can be inserted into the process.
Similarly, it may be that ASAP needs the authority (and budget) to appoint independent “investigators” who can go out and talk to program teams directly and compile the information for ASAP outside of those specific windows; or at least tell ASAP that information exists, the right people have the information, and that it genuinely can’t be released yet.]
Deleting comment do to EtOH’s correction.
Yes, they cancelled in-flight abort testing.
Maybe they should hire SpaceX to provide a reusable booster since they don’t seem to be able to afford to use their own. So much for NASA caring about safety?? Was this abort in the price? And how much is NASA/US taxpayer getting back for not doing this test? Should be a pretty penny since Atlas boosters cost so much.
How much lead time is needed to put an Atlas on the pad again?
Something stinks to me?
To be fair, with no ability to shut down the attached solid boosters, an in-flight abort test might be dangerous. I’m sure they were exempted on legitimate safety concerns.
It was originally scheduled, later dropped.
I don’t know if it is a good trade-off – aborting a vehicle over open ocean vs live testing of a key safety feature.
See it scheduled on page 12:
http://www.boeing.com/asset…
later – An ascent abort demonstration originally planned using a third Atlas 5 rocket has been removed from the Boeing test manifest, according to (John) Mulholland (vice president and general manager of Boeing commercial programs)
,
In any event, why use the solid for the test?
Use a dummy second stage and fuel sufficient to last a minute and a half.
I wonder if the motive was $$$$$$.
Will solids be on it when it flies with humans?
I believe so; at least they appear in ULA’s renderings.
Its a 412 – 4 meter shroud sort of, 1 solid, and a twin engine centaur upper stage (the centaur is a nice engine IMNVHO)
Humans on a rocket with solids again??? 🙁
Hey, if its good enough for the Shuttle and SLS, its good enough for CST-100.
Solids are to dangerous for rockets carrying humans.
Reasons
Once lit solids can not be turned off or throttled down.
Uncontrollable!
If they have a side wall failure horizontal thrust is likely throwing the stack into a wild spin.
If you have solids mixed with liquids as in the case of the challenger accident after a RUD event the solids are left to wildly fly around increasing the likelyhood of hitting the escaping crew.
Isn’t the safest LV an all liquid, with engine out capiablity??
I was being sarcastic. I think the shuttle was a money-pit/death-trap and the SLS as a cash and time black-hole.
I prefer not not fly people on something that can’t be controlled. NASA phonied-up the safety rating for the ARES-1 (The Stick) which is an SRB with people on top.
Didn’t miss the sarcasum. I was just trying to recall the reasons flying crew on solids was a bad idea. Most people are led to believe its just fine by the shuttle, SLS, Atlas, example I would think.
What state makes solids for atlas? Isn’t the reason solids are still used mostly political?
Well, it looks like somewhere down the line it became an Atlas 422 with 2 SRBs:
“In August 2011 Boeing announced, that the Atlas-5(412) launch vehicle was selected for the first flights. Later it was upgraded to the Atlas-5(422) version.”
The Orion in-flight abort is to be tested on a solid booster, so it cannot be safety concerns. Its buxx.
My sarcasm might have been a little too subtle there, let’s just say that I share your views on the wisdom of mixing crew and solid boosters.
I am just surprised that NASA doesn’t require any ascent abort test for CST-100. Orion gets one, Crew Dragon gets one. Whats with that?
It is very difficult to abort from an SRB. http://www.youtube.com/watc…
Abort system mass increases when solids are in the design.
They are not going to blow up the Peacemaker lofting the Orion. It is just to carry craft to abort velocity. I would not be surprised if the booster torques away and/or flies into the sea.
Did I miss something? I thought the CST-100 used a pusher LAS under the trunk, no tower. I hadn’t heard anything about no escape until orbit, what does that even mean?
Means I made a mistake!
Thanks for pointing it out 🙂
Interesting. SpaceX seems to be generally missing their classic 26 month delay standard. Only 22 months most of the time. Disconcerting.
Still curious if a congressional aid put a bug in someone’s ear about transparency … same words as Senator Shelby.
I wonder what might be the outcome be if ASAP bypassed NASA and directly audited the CC providers’ work rather than NASA’s ability to oversee it? I’ve got a feeling that it is the latter that is the problem.
I wondered the same thing.
“Transparency” to any bureaucrat or quasi-government agency such as ASAP is laughable. Cut a check to ASAP and utilize the FAR and your are “Transparent”.
Of course, this is BS. ASAP is so out of their league when it comes to commercial crew and cargo. The old and moldies still think that SpaceX operates in a vacuum without NASA input. Of course, this is wrong and people inside NASA and SpaceX know this.
It is funny – I wonder how much grief ASAP is giving Boeing?
Finally, and this needs to be repeated as long as ASAP is around – GOOD PEOPLE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE NASA WARNED ABOUT CHALLENGER. GOOD PEOPLE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE NASA WARNED ABOUT COLUMBIA.
It was upper management inside NASA that doomed those two shuttle flights. Pushing to launch Challenger when ATK/Marshall said no. Refusing to take a look at the left wing of Columbia when all the science said “look” and make no mistake about it – we could have looked.
ASAP is a joke and needs to be relegated to the trash heap of history.
Some pretty strong statements.
http://www.spaceflightinsid… . Go there to see an actual mission planed by NASA that is logical and lowest cost. Peace Keeper and reuse Orion test Capsule for inflight abort test. It is now set for ’19. This may have been covered a long time ago, but it is worth rereading and remembering the next time you think of NASA wasting money. Someone may think of a better cheaper way though. Really neat.
I am adding this late. Plenty of time to comment later. Peace Keeper has a venting system, so they can shut it off and drop the warhead where they want. It may be good enough in an abort, no flaming pieces to burn the parachutes. Congress has said for NASA to have a backup to CC in SLS. The Peace Keeper-Orion with a 2nd stage may be it. I do not know if enough performance though. A safe crew transfer. Orion would launch with crew, then hook up with the SLS launched habitat-transfer spacecraft. Sort of like a safe Ares-1.
The #1 thing that bothers me on NASA safety is the dropping of Soyuz rocket parts on poor people as in Space Tourists video. It looks like a coverup by everybody except the person that made the video and channel that aired it. NASA has never made a statement about it since they started using Soyuz. Nor CNN, USA presidents, State or any other agency. Like human rights. ASAP has never said anything. Obama seems to like people, but not those people. Since a lot of the time the rockets come down in one piece, the odds of one those hitting people or property is low. When they break up or pieces come off, they cover a wide area. These poor people had a piece come down in their garden. Yes here parts and airplanes fall on people. Soyuz is 100% preventable. Don’t use Soyuz unless SA or Russia builds a new safe launch center that goes out to sea. Use cargo Dragon to launch Crew as cargo. Add an abort motor in the trunk. Star Trek put a woman in spacecraft slightly larger than her, with an oxygen mask. Kelly would not mind. Bolden said how important 2 crew providers are. Well Charlie, a better idea would have had a new vehicle ready to go when Shuttle shut down or do COTS-D and then do a new competition for another provider. Logical NASA to me how it should have been done. Now neither one may make it on time. NASA will not have back up which could easily be done with cargo Dragons. I hope they have to shut down ISS. No ire, just hope. They deserve it.
Its not just having big chunks of metal fall out of the sky with the Soyuz. The Proton is fueled with tons of corrosive and extremely toxic hypergolic propellant. The empty stages are toxic, and the failed launches are environmental disasters.
http://www.themoscowtimes.c…