nasa wants to transport passengers to ISS

http://fortune.com/2015/09/04/nasa-commercial-flights/

In article ,
says...

http://fortune.com/2015/09/04/nasa-commercial-flights/

A link to a summery of an article that's behind a pay-wall. :-P

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

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

http://fortune.com/2015/09/04/nasa-commercial-flights/

A link to a summery of an article that's behind a pay-wall. :-P

Jeff

Try:

https://www.google.com/#q=NASA+Books...pace+Flig hts

That usually gets you past the paywall.

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

http://fortune.com/2015/09/04/nasa-commercial-flights/

A link to a summery of an article that's behind a pay-wall. :-P

Jeff

Try:

https://www.google.com/#q=NASA+Books...pace+Flig hts

That usually gets you past the paywall.

Thanks, that worked. :-)

Last two paragraphs are somewhat troubling:

Despite upbeat assessments of progress, the government seemingly
hasn't yet worked out specifics of how the companies will
demonstrate they fully meet NASA's safety standards and
requirements. Mr. McAlister, for example, said the agency has
received a ?preliminary certification plan? and ?at a very top
level, we?ve got that well defined.? But he said a more
detailed, step-by-step plan ?has not been finalized yet.?

The situation is further complicated by the fact that each
company is scheduled to have only a few months in 2017 to
adjust their certification plans based on lessons learned from
test flights into orbit. ?We don?t want any surprises and they
don't want to surprise us? with major changes, according to Mr.
McAlister. ?If there is any test that goes on,? he said, ?we
have a legal right? to the results.

So, as usual, NASA still doesn't have a good handle on on what it means
to be "certified" for manned spaceflight. No surpirse there, since when
they run their own certification process for their own vehicles, they
also get to write the wavers in all of the places where they've broken
their own rules.

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

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

http://fortune.com/2015/09/04/nasa-commercial-flights/

A link to a summery of an article that's behind a pay-wall. :-P

Jeff

Try:

https://www.google.com/#q=NASA+Books...pace+Flig hts

That usually gets you past the paywall.

Thanks, that worked. :-)

You're welcome. Good track to keep in your back pocket.


Last two paragraphs are somewhat troubling:

Despite upbeat assessments of progress, the government seemingly
hasn't yet worked out specifics of how the companies will
demonstrate they fully meet NASA's safety standards and
requirements. Mr. McAlister, for example, said the agency has
received a ?preliminary certification plan? and ?at a very top
level, we?ve got that well defined.? But he said a more
detailed, step-by-step plan ?has not been finalized yet.?

The situation is further complicated by the fact that each
company is scheduled to have only a few months in 2017 to
adjust their certification plans based on lessons learned from
test flights into orbit. ?We don?t want any surprises and they
don't want to surprise us? with major changes, according to Mr.
McAlister. ?If there is any test that goes on,? he said, ?we
have a legal right? to the results.

So, as usual, NASA still doesn't have a good handle on on what it means
to be "certified" for manned spaceflight. No surpirse there, since when
they run their own certification process for their own vehicles, they
also get to write the wavers in all of the places where they've broken
their own rules.

Yeah. It seems like they want a nice back door to suddenly say, "Nope, see
they can't meet our requirements, only Orion can do that!"


Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article ,
says...
Last two paragraphs are somewhat troubling:

Despite upbeat assessments of progress, the government seemingly
hasn't yet worked out specifics of how the companies will
demonstrate they fully meet NASA's safety standards and
requirements. Mr. McAlister, for example, said the agency has
received a ?preliminary certification plan? and ?at a very top
level, we?ve got that well defined.? But he said a more
detailed, step-by-step plan ?has not been finalized yet.?

The situation is further complicated by the fact that each
company is scheduled to have only a few months in 2017 to
adjust their certification plans based on lessons learned from
test flights into orbit. ?We don?t want any surprises and they
don't want to surprise us? with major changes, according to Mr.
McAlister. ?If there is any test that goes on,? he said, ?we
have a legal right? to the results.

So, as usual, NASA still doesn't have a good handle on on what it means
to be "certified" for manned spaceflight. No surpirse there, since when
they run their own certification process for their own vehicles, they
also get to write the wavers in all of the places where they've broken
their own rules.

Yeah. It seems like they want a nice back door to suddenly say, "Nope, see
they can't meet our requirements, only Orion can do that!"


Hopefully not. The current NASA Administrator seems very pro-commercial
crew. That is what will get waivers written.

Remember, this is the agency ready and willing to launch a crew on top
of a new five segment SRB, despite the lack of a non-violent thrust
termination system and despite the vibration issues with "the stick".
NASA Administrators wield quite a bit of management and/or
administrative power.

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

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...
Last two paragraphs are somewhat troubling:

Despite upbeat assessments of progress, the government seemingly
hasn't yet worked out specifics of how the companies will
demonstrate they fully meet NASA's safety standards and
requirements. Mr. McAlister, for example, said the agency has
received a ?preliminary certification plan? and ?at a very top
level, we?ve got that well defined.? But he said a more
detailed, step-by-step plan ?has not been finalized yet.?

The situation is further complicated by the fact that each
company is scheduled to have only a few months in 2017 to
adjust their certification plans based on lessons learned from
test flights into orbit. ?We don?t want any surprises and they
don't want to surprise us? with major changes, according to Mr.
McAlister. ?If there is any test that goes on,? he said, ?we
have a legal right? to the results.

So, as usual, NASA still doesn't have a good handle on on what it means
to be "certified" for manned spaceflight. No surpirse there, since when
they run their own certification process for their own vehicles, they
also get to write the wavers in all of the places where they've broken
their own rules.

Yeah. It seems like they want a nice back door to suddenly say, "Nope,
see
they can't meet our requirements, only Orion can do that!"


Hopefully not. The current NASA Administrator seems very pro-commercial
crew. That is what will get waivers written.


I hope so.

That said the first major incident will probably spark a LOT of discussion.

But I'm honestly excited since once either Boeing or SpaceX have commercial
capability things like private space stations (hello Bigelow) are that much
more likely to happen.

We really on the verge of a quantum change in access to LEO.


Remember, this is the agency ready and willing to launch a crew on top
of a new five segment SRB, despite the lack of a non-violent thrust
termination system and despite the vibration issues with "the stick".
NASA Administrators wield quite a bit of management and/or
administrative power.

Yeah, those were pretty stupid ideas!


Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On 9/7/2015 8:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
Remember, this is the agency ready and willing to launch a crew on top
of a new five segment SRB, despite the lack of a non-violent thrust
termination system and despite the vibration issues with "the stick".

This is also the same NASA that put a crew in the maiden flight of the
space shuttle. As far as I know, putting a crew in a totally untried
rocket system is still unprecedented anywhere in the world!

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 7:35:51 AM UTC-4, Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 9/7/2015 8:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
Remember, this is the agency ready and willing to launch a crew on top
of a new five segment SRB, despite the lack of a non-violent thrust
termination system and despite the vibration issues with "the stick".

This is also the same NASA that put a crew in the maiden flight of the
space shuttle. As far as I know, putting a crew in a totally untried
rocket system is still unprecedented anywhere in the world!


yeah and the acoustic vibrations nearly created a disaster. building the shuttle without launch boost escape should of been proscuted criminally

In article ,
says...

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:


But I'm honestly excited since once either Boeing or SpaceX have commercial
capability things like private space stations (hello Bigelow) are that much
more likely to happen.

We really on the verge of a quantum change in access to LEO.


Yeah, and all they had to do was waste my entire lifetime getting
there...

But hey, ULA engineers finally get to work on their ACES upper stage.
They've only been publishing papers about the tech they wanted to
incorporate into the thing "like forever".

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