NASA Safety Panel report released.

The 2009 Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel report has been released by
NASA; pdf he
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oer/as...ual_Report.pdf

Key findings:

1.) No manufacturer of Commercial Orbital Transportation Services is
currently qualified for human-rating requirements, despite some claims
and beliefs to the contrary.

2.) To abandon the program of record* as a baseline for an alternative
without demonstrated capability or proven superiority is unwise and
probably not cost-effective.

3.) Extension of the shuttle program significantly beyond the current
manifest would be ill-advised. The panel is concerned about discussions
regarding possible extension of shuttle operations.

*Ares-1/Orion

The ball is certainly in SpaceX and Orbital Science's court now; both
must prove that they can make a booster as reliable as Ares-1 and a
manned spacecraft as safe as Orion...as well as demonstrating that a
first stage failure during ascent will melt the parachutes on their
aborting space capsule design also, allowing the crew to fall to their
deaths.
A tough nut to crack, that one. ;-)


Pat

Pat Flannery writes:

The ball is certainly in SpaceX and Orbital Science's court now; both must
prove that they can make a booster as reliable as Ares-1 and a manned
spacecraft as safe as Orion...as well as demonstrating that a first stage
failure during ascent will melt the parachutes on their aborting space capsule
design also, allowing the crew to fall to their deaths.
A tough nut to crack, that one. ;-)

They'll need to line the inner casing of the Falcon 9 with an incendiary
that can burn long enough to keep the mean debris field temperatures
high enough to melt the chutes.

Hmm, I'd recommened a mixture of ammonium percholrate/polybutadiene-acrylic
mixed with long thin strips of magnesium as an essential part of the binding
agent to be used as an insulative exterior tank liner for the Falcon 9.

If you can keep the weight down, that should match the requirement.

;-)

Dave

David Spain wrote:

Hmm, I'd recommened a mixture of ammonium percholrate/polybutadiene-acrylic
mixed with long thin strips of magnesium as an essential part of the binding
agent to be used as an insulative exterior tank liner for the Falcon 9.

And don't forget the Ulmer leather gaskets on the LOX tank; it worked
for the X-1, it will work here also.
As might be expected, the commercial space concerns got ****ed at the
report:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/0...cial-spac.html
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/0...x-refutes.html

Pat

Pat Flannery writes:
As might be expected, the commercial space concerns got ****ed at the report:

COTS and The Persuit of the Holy Grail....

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/quotes

NASA safety panel in role of French Solider: I don't want to talk to you no
more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general
direction. You mother was a hampster and your father smelt of elderberries.

Commercial space concerns as Sir Galahad: Is there someone else up
there we can talk to?

Saftey Panel: No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

:-)

Dave

David Spain wrote:


Saftey Panel: No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

"But we have a new launch vehicle for you to consider."
"We already have one...iz's very nice."


Pat

Pat Flannery writes:

David Spain wrote:


Saftey Panel: No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

"But we have a new launch vehicle for you to consider."
"We already have one...iz's very nice."

"You do?"

;-)

Dave

Pat Flannery writes:

The 2009 Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel report has been released by NASA; pdf
he
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oer/as...ual_Report.pdf


This seems like so much CYA in order for NASA to persue the status quo with
the ability to claim down the road that their inaction on the COTS front was
totally justified by the unproven safety record of the commercial launchers
as detailed by this study.

The ball is certainly in SpaceX and Orbital Science's court now;

I think it always was. I don't think NASA will voluntarily choose COTS for
manned spaceflight, until the commercial guys have proven they can do it all
on their own. What's a little strange tho' is the schzoid nature of all this
since isn't NASA funding a lot of this work?

I'm confused and don't 'get' it. Help!

Dave

David Spain wrote:

I think it always was. I don't think NASA will voluntarily choose COTS for
manned spaceflight, until the commercial guys have proven they can do it all
on their own. What's a little strange tho' is the schzoid nature of all this
since isn't NASA funding a lot of this work?

Yeah, but it was sort of shoved down their throat, and I doubt either
they or ULA like it, and would prefer the whole concept to go away.

I'm confused and don't 'get' it. Help!

Politics.
Particularly after the incorperation of United Launch Alliance, you were
ending up with a "single source" space program run by a few big
aerospace firms that could charge whatever they liked, as you had no
alternative to them.
Keep an eye on this; if Falcon-9 works, some big aerospace company or
group of companies will try to get control over SpaceX to keep
everything "in the family" so to speak.

Pat

"David Spain" wrote in message
...
Pat Flannery writes:

The 2009 Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel report has been released by
NASA; pdf
he
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oer/as...ual_Report.pdf


This seems like so much CYA in order for NASA to persue the status quo
with
the ability to claim down the road that their inaction on the COTS front
was
totally justified by the unproven safety record of the commercial
launchers
as detailed by this study.

The ball is certainly in SpaceX and Orbital Science's court now;

I think it always was. I don't think NASA will voluntarily choose COTS for
manned spaceflight, until the commercial guys have proven they can do it
all
on their own. What's a little strange tho' is the schzoid nature of all
this
since isn't NASA funding a lot of this work?

I'm confused and don't 'get' it. Help!

There are some rumblings that the Administration wants NASA to go with
commercial vehicles for space access. This would seem to mean the end of
the Orion program as we know it. I personally wouldn't go that far, but I
would tell NASA that they need to launch Orion on a commercial vehicle and
ditch Ares I.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

Jeff Findley wrote:
There are some rumblings that the Administration wants NASA to go with
commercial vehicles for space access. This would seem to mean the end of
the Orion program as we know it. I personally wouldn't go that far, but I
would tell NASA that they need to launch Orion on a commercial vehicle and
ditch Ares I.

Does either Delta IV heavy or Atlas V heavy have the lifting capacity to
carry Orion as presently designed into orbit?
A lot of Orion's design capabilities were focused on the lunar mission,
and it's probably over-capable for simple LEO missions to the ISS.
Since ISS will probably only be operational till 2020, at that point you
have a spacecraft with no obvious mission to perform unless you go to
the Moon or decide to build a follow-up space station.
Even just for ISS crewing it's important to get whatever you build up
and flying in the near future so as to maximize its use before the ISS
is retired. Otherwise it's probably pointless to build a new manned
spacecraft, and you probably just want to buy more Soyuz rides from the
Russians.
If ISS is retired in 2015 instead, then this is really a waste of time -
as by the time it's in service the ISS will be getting ready to be shut
down.

Pat