Man Rating - let Lloyds do it

I keep seeing the comments on the Ares I and it's man rating
predictions by NASA, and the arguement that it would be easier to
man-rate the Atlas V instead. I kinda agree with that, but shouldn't
we work more on getting the man-rating out of NASA's hands and either
into the hands of the FAA, which actually deals with money making
(sometimes) companies, or better yet with Lloyd's of London, which has
lots of experience in determining the risks they are willing to cover.

It's not human life is priceless, if it was, would we have life
insurance?

John

John Stoffel wrote:
I keep seeing the comments on the Ares I and it's man rating
predictions by NASA, and the arguement that it would be easier to
man-rate the Atlas V instead. I kinda agree with that, but shouldn't
we work more on getting the man-rating out of NASA's hands and either
into the hands of the FAA, which actually deals with money making
(sometimes) companies, or better yet with Lloyd's of London, which has
lots of experience in determining the risks they are willing to cover.

If Lloyds did it, the rationale for Ares 1 would disappear. Perhaps
that's why NASA insists on being judge and jury.

At the moment, Ares 1 is much safer than Atlas V. No one ever got
killed by a paper rocket.

"John Stoffel" wrote in message
...

I keep seeing the comments on the Ares I and it's man rating
predictions by NASA, and the arguement that it would be easier to
man-rate the Atlas V instead. I kinda agree with that, but shouldn't
we work more on getting the man-rating out of NASA's hands and either
into the hands of the FAA, which actually deals with money making
(sometimes) companies, or better yet with Lloyd's of London, which has
lots of experience in determining the risks they are willing to cover.

It's not human life is priceless, if it was, would we have life
insurance?

NASA's human rating requirements only apply to NASA vehicles. Commercial
vehicles are not subject to them. Thankfully.

Kim Keller wrote:
"John Stoffel" wrote in message
...

I keep seeing the comments on the Ares I and it's man rating
predictions by NASA, and the arguement that it would be easier to
man-rate the Atlas V instead. I kinda agree with that, but shouldn't
we work more on getting the man-rating out of NASA's hands and either
into the hands of the FAA, which actually deals with money making
(sometimes) companies, or better yet with Lloyd's of London, which has
lots of experience in determining the risks they are willing to cover.

It's not human life is priceless, if it was, would we have life
insurance?

NASA's human rating requirements only apply to NASA vehicles. Commercial
vehicles are not subject to them. Thankfully.

I think they apply to commercial vehicles carrying NASA astronauts.

In article om,
Alex Terrell wrote:
NASA's human rating requirements only apply to NASA vehicles. Commercial
vehicles are not subject to them. Thankfully.

I think they apply to commercial vehicles carrying NASA astronauts.

That is actually an open question, since the issue has not yet really
arisen. If NASA comes under pressure to use vehicles whose operators can
demonstrate adequate safety by alternate means (e.g. a successful test
program) and balk at a costly paperwork exercise, we might suddenly find
that those requirements don't in fact apply. Applicability is a political
decision, not a technical one.

There is already a precedent for NASA buying seats for NASA astronauts on
non-human-rated vehicles, since Soyuz is not human-rated. The question is
whether that precedent applies to new commercial vehicles, and that's
entirely a political decision.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
ps.com...
I think they apply to commercial vehicles carrying NASA astronauts.

Yeah, that's probably true.

NASA "customers" aside, launcher/spacecraft that will be operated on a
commercial basis won't have to meet those requirements, which even NASA's
own vehicles (plus Russia's) don't meet. Personally, I think that once an
operator demonstrates consistently safe operations NASA will cave on its
requirements - although I'm not holding my breath waiting for the day NASA
buys a seat on a truly commercial carrier. It will still want to own/operate
its own transportation and it will still levy its own over-burdensome
requirements on the builder of whatever system it wants.

On 14 Oct 2006 11:58:44 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Alex
Terrell" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


Kim Keller wrote:
"John Stoffel" wrote in message
...

I keep seeing the comments on the Ares I and it's man rating
predictions by NASA, and the arguement that it would be easier to
man-rate the Atlas V instead. I kinda agree with that, but shouldn't
we work more on getting the man-rating out of NASA's hands and either
into the hands of the FAA, which actually deals with money making
(sometimes) companies, or better yet with Lloyd's of London, which has
lots of experience in determining the risks they are willing to cover.

It's not human life is priceless, if it was, would we have life
insurance?

NASA's human rating requirements only apply to NASA vehicles. Commercial
vehicles are not subject to them. Thankfully.

I think they apply to commercial vehicles carrying NASA astronauts.

So far, that's an oxymoron.