As safe as the Shuttle then.. Ahem, really?

"NASA is committed to launching American astronauts from U.S. soil in the
very near future, and we're taking a significant step toward achieving that
goal today," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said. "Our American industry
partners have already proven they can safely and reliably launch supplies to
the space station, and now we're working with them to get our crews there as
well. However, we will require that these companies provide spacecraft that
meet the same rigorous safety standards we had for the space shuttle
program,
while providing good value to the American taxpayer."

Hmm.. well, ..
Brian


--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________

In article ,
says...

"NASA is committed to launching American astronauts from U.S. soil in the
very near future, and we're taking a significant step toward achieving that
goal today," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said. "Our American industry
partners have already proven they can safely and reliably launch supplies to
the space station, and now we're working with them to get our crews there as
well. However, we will require that these companies provide spacecraft that
meet the same rigorous safety standards we had for the space shuttle
program,
while providing good value to the American taxpayer."

Hmm.. well, ..
Brian

It's a "good enough" yardstick for ISS. After all, I'm guessing crewed
flights on commercial crew will happen about every six months. That's a
lower flight rate than the shuttle, so the odds of losing a crew, in a
given year, will be less even if they "only" achieve space shuttle like
reliability.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On 11/20/2013 3:37 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

"NASA is committed to launching American astronauts from U.S. soil in the
very near future, and we're taking a significant step toward achieving that
goal today," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said. "Our American industry
partners have already proven they can safely and reliably launch supplies to
the space station, and now we're working with them to get our crews there as
well. However, we will require that these companies provide spacecraft that
meet the same rigorous safety standards we had for the space shuttle
program,
while providing good value to the American taxpayer."

Hmm.. well, ..
Brian

It's a "good enough" yardstick for ISS. After all, I'm guessing crewed
flights on commercial crew will happen about every six months. That's a
lower flight rate than the shuttle, so the odds of losing a crew, in a
given year, will be less even if they "only" achieve space shuttle like
reliability.

Jeff


My feeling on this is that Dragon/Falcon-9 and Shuttle are such
completely different systems that statistical comparisons between them
are probably meaningless.

It would only be slightly more informative to compare Dragon/F9 to
Mercury/Atlas or Gemini/Titan....

Dave

David Spain formulated the question :
On 11/20/2013 3:37 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

"NASA is committed to launching American astronauts from U.S. soil in the
very near future, and we're taking a significant step toward achieving
that
goal today," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said. "Our American
industry
partners have already proven they can safely and reliably launch supplies
to
the space station, and now we're working with them to get our crews there
as
well. However, we will require that these companies provide spacecraft
that
meet the same rigorous safety standards we had for the space shuttle
program,
while providing good value to the American taxpayer."

Hmm.. well, ..
Brian

It's a "good enough" yardstick for ISS. After all, I'm guessing crewed
flights on commercial crew will happen about every six months. That's a
lower flight rate than the shuttle, so the odds of losing a crew, in a
given year, will be less even if they "only" achieve space shuttle like
reliability.

Jeff


My feeling on this is that Dragon/Falcon-9 and Shuttle are such completely
different systems that statistical comparisons between them are probably
meaningless.

It would only be slightly more informative to compare Dragon/F9 to
Mercury/Atlas or Gemini/Titan....


The statistical comparison that counts is not at all meaningless: can
the crew expect to get to spoace, perform their mission, and return?

Statistical comparisons delaing with individual components may be
problematic, but I don't see a difference in counting mission failures.

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

Snidely submitted this gripping article, maybe on Wednesday:

The statistical comparison that counts is not at all meaningless: can the
crew expect to get to spoace, perform their mission, and return?

Statistical comparisons delaing with individual components may be
problematic, but I don't see a difference in counting mission failures.

Crap, I need to fire my proof reader ... the statistical properties of
that component are not staying within guidelines.

/dps

--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

I think I was really taking exception of saying the Shuttle was the safest
thing since sliced bread implication in the statement. I mean, it kind of
glosses over that the issues with the Shuttle were almost as much a
management and culture issue, as problems with the hardware.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"NASA is committed to launching American astronauts from U.S. soil in the
very near future, and we're taking a significant step toward achieving
that
goal today," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said. "Our American
industry
partners have already proven they can safely and reliably launch supplies
to
the space station, and now we're working with them to get our crews there
as
well. However, we will require that these companies provide spacecraft
that
meet the same rigorous safety standards we had for the space shuttle
program,
while providing good value to the American taxpayer."

Hmm.. well, ..
Brian

It's a "good enough" yardstick for ISS. After all, I'm guessing crewed
flights on commercial crew will happen about every six months. That's a
lower flight rate than the shuttle, so the odds of losing a crew, in a
given year, will be less even if they "only" achieve space shuttle like
reliability.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Don't worry we all knew wot you ment.

What you need is a boring screenreader voice like wot I has. It can spot
some of the things eyes do not.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Snidely" wrote in message
news:mn.a53d7ddb9370c1bb.127094@snitoo...
Snidely submitted this gripping article, maybe on Wednesday:

The statistical comparison that counts is not at all meaningless: can
the crew expect to get to spoace, perform their mission, and return?

Statistical comparisons delaing with individual components may be
problematic, but I don't see a difference in counting mission failures.

Crap, I need to fire my proof reader ... the statistical properties of
that component are not staying within guidelines.

/dps

--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

My thinking exactly. Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"JF Mezei" wrote in message
eb.com...
One big aspect to consider is whether the private contractors are very
confortable within their budgets or whether there is intense pressure to
cut costs, at which point the risk of accident increases.

The Shuttle was very much cost constrained so NASA was not comfortable
in its budgets and couldn't make the improvements that were needed to
make the Shuttle safer and more efficient.

On 11/21/2013 1:21 AM, Snidely wrote:
Snidely submitted this gripping article, maybe on Wednesday:

The statistical comparison that counts is not at all meaningless:
can the crew expect to get to spoace, perform their mission, and return?

Statistical comparisons delaing with individual components may be
problematic, but I don't see a difference in counting mission failures.

Crap, I need to fire my proof reader ... the statistical properties of
that component are not staying within guidelines.

/dps


But of what practical use are such statistics? Might as well have a
measurement along the lines of "breathable air is good factor"...

I read Mr. Bolden's commentary about Dragon/F9 vs Shuttle as more of a
political "selling job" for CCDev. Underlying that is really nothing but
statistical vaporware, since Falcon 9/Dragon is not yet flying humans.
And even if it were only the most superficial of comparisons to shuttle
can be made.

You want a near meaning-less statistic (from an engineering perspective)
how about: Number of Crew Killed to Date....

Dave

On 11/21/2013 5:04 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
One big aspect to consider is whether the private contractors are very
confortable within their budgets or whether there is intense pressure to
cut costs, at which point the risk of accident increases.

The Shuttle was very much cost constrained so NASA was not comfortable
in its budgets and couldn't make the improvements that were needed to
make the Shuttle safer and more efficient.


Now we're getting somewhere.

Yes I agree with that. And to the detriment of CCDev, unlike previous
NASA operations, these numbers are likely to be kept quiet and out of
the public eye due to competitive reasons.

Do we know if CCDev requirements force the contractor to be
"out-in-the-open" with such numbers?

OTOH a lot will depend upon how the contracts with the vendors are
written. But CCDev is unique in that NASA (read Congress) isn't
necessarily the sole customer. This is the new wrinkle here. Of course
it remains to be seen how much of a 'driver' (for crewed space efforts)
this will be. So far, from the vendor's perspective, we're still looking
a lot like a sole sourced client.

One take-away that I like very much about how SpaceX is doing business
is they are making efforts to piggy-back technology stretches along with
operational launches. Of course it would seem common sense that this
induces additional risk. On the non-crewed side, this doesn't seem to be
an issue with the COMSAT clients to date.

Dave