A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 20th 13, 11:38 AM posted to sci.space.station
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default 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:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________



  #2  
Old November 20th 13, 09:37 PM posted to sci.space.station
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default As safe as the Shuttle then.. Ahem, really?

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
  #3  
Old November 20th 13, 10:31 PM posted to sci.space.station
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default As safe as the Shuttle then.. Ahem, really?

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

  #4  
Old November 21st 13, 07:20 AM posted to sci.space.station
snidely
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,303
Default As safe as the Shuttle then.. Ahem, really?

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?


  #5  
Old November 21st 13, 07:21 AM posted to sci.space.station
snidely
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,303
Default As safe as the Shuttle then.. Ahem, really?

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


  #6  
Old November 21st 13, 10:25 AM posted to sci.space.station
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default As safe as the Shuttle then.. Ahem, really?

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



  #7  
Old November 21st 13, 10:29 AM posted to sci.space.station
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default As safe as the Shuttle then.. Ahem, really?

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




  #8  
Old November 22nd 13, 11:16 AM posted to sci.space.station
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default As safe as the Shuttle then.. Ahem, really?

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.



  #9  
Old November 22nd 13, 08:54 PM posted to sci.space.station
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default As safe as the Shuttle then.. Ahem, really?

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

  #10  
Old November 22nd 13, 09:26 PM posted to sci.space.station
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default As safe as the Shuttle then.. Ahem, really?

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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Better Safe than Sorry Shuttle William Elliot Policy 3 August 16th 07 03:00 PM
Shuttle Derived Launchers - Safe, Simple, Soon Rusty History 99 July 22nd 05 02:13 AM
Ahem... Richard Amateur Astronomy 17 May 2nd 04 03:53 AM
Ahem Joseph Nebus History 9 July 13th 03 05:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.