|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Safety Panel report released.
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Safety Panel report released.
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Safety Panel report released.
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Safety Panel report released.
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Safety Panel report released.
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Safety Panel report released.
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Safety Panel report released.
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Safety Panel report released.
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?" "I told him we already 'ave one." "Hee-hee-hee." Pat |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Safety Panel report released.
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA Names New Safety Advisory Panel | Ron Baalke | Space Shuttle | 0 | November 18th 03 11:23 PM |
Entire NASA Safety Panel Resigns! | Rudolph_X | Astronomy Misc | 14 | September 27th 03 06:13 AM |