It's not just the Apollo-era vets who have concerns about Commercial

Space.com had Jerry Ross, who has the most flight hours in space among NASA astronauts (Shuttle and ISS), and he has his concerns about the viabiity of Commercial Crew. It's here at: http://www.space.com/20094-nasa-s-mo...ace-video.html

On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:36:53 AM UTC-8, Matt Wiser wrote:
Space.com had Jerry Ross, who has the most flight hours in space among NASA astronauts (Shuttle and ISS), and he has his concerns about the viabiity of Commercial Crew. It's here at: http://www.space.com/20094-nasa-s-mo...ace-video.html

If humanity ever has the guts to develop nuclear power spaceship,
I'd want excellent non-PC vetting. Private industry would tend to
slip to the least possible inputs. Perhaps private space needs to
leave the driving to 'intelligent' or highly programmed the black boxes.
That way the crew can 'concentrate' on learning to put on a space
suit when they land on the surface of where ever.

Spam in can plus Jack in the box as the solution.................Trig

In article ,
says...

Space.com had Jerry Ross, who has the most flight hours in space among NASA astronauts (Shuttle and ISS), and he has his concerns about the viabiity of Commercial Crew. It's here at: http://www.space.com/20094-nasa-s-mo...ace-video.html

He says he has no problem with "private" vehicles, but objects to
calling them "private" since the money is coming from NASA. He seems to
be objecting to spending NASA money on Commercial Crew since, in his
view, it's taking money away from SLS and Orion, which could be used to
"accelerate" those programs.

He also objects because NASA won't have as much "insight into those
vehicles", I'm assuming he means when compared with Orion.

He's also objecting to them because he doesn't think they would be
economically viable without NASA's support.

He also poses the scenario that if a crew is lost (NASA or a private
crew), he believes that the company could not survive and would go out
of business.


I understand his point of view, but I'd like to note that the money
being spent on Commercial Crew is *tiny* compared to the overall
SLS/Orion budget. So, from a cost/risk or cost/benefit point of view,
Commercial Crew is still a bet I'd take. If it pays off, it will pay
off big. If it doesn't pay off, then the US is back to (or still on)
Soyuz or on to Orion, if it's ready.

I'd also note that from the point of view of "safety", his fellow
astronauts are still flying on Soyuz, despite the lack of "insight into
those vehicles", and despite the number of close calls with Soyuz over
the life of the ISS program.

The bottom line for me with "safety" is, who would you rather deal with,
a US company or the Russians?

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

On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 2:20:26 PM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...



Space.com had Jerry Ross, who has the most flight hours in space among NASA astronauts (Shuttle and ISS), and he has his concerns about the viabiity of Commercial Crew. It's here at: http://www.space.com/20094-nasa-s-mo...ace-video.html



He says he has no problem with "private" vehicles, but objects to

calling them "private" since the money is coming from NASA. He seems to

be objecting to spending NASA money on Commercial Crew since, in his

view, it's taking money away from SLS and Orion, which could be used to

"accelerate" those programs.



He also objects because NASA won't have as much "insight into those

vehicles", I'm assuming he means when compared with Orion.



He's also objecting to them because he doesn't think they would be

economically viable without NASA's support.



He also poses the scenario that if a crew is lost (NASA or a private

crew), he believes that the company could not survive and would go out

of business.





I understand his point of view, but I'd like to note that the money

being spent on Commercial Crew is *tiny* compared to the overall

SLS/Orion budget. So, from a cost/risk or cost/benefit point of view,

Commercial Crew is still a bet I'd take. If it pays off, it will pay

off big. If it doesn't pay off, then the US is back to (or still on)

Soyuz or on to Orion, if it's ready.



I'd also note that from the point of view of "safety", his fellow

astronauts are still flying on Soyuz, despite the lack of "insight into

those vehicles", and despite the number of close calls with Soyuz over

the life of the ISS program.



The bottom line for me with "safety" is, who would you rather deal with,

a US company or the Russians?



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

OK, I think I understand an inch more.

Thanks.......and with another 4 inches I'll be go for launch......Trig

On 7/03/2013 5:36 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:
Space.com had Jerry Ross, who has the most flight hours in space
among NASA astronauts (Shuttle and ISS), and he has his concerns
about the viabiity of Commercial Crew. It's here at:
http://www.space.com/20094-nasa-s-mo...ace-video.html


As far as safety goes, he'd have a stronger argument if NASA hadn't
killed two shuttle crew in manifestly avoidable accidents.

Sylvia.

On Mar 6, 5:20*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Space.com had Jerry Ross, who has the most flight hours in space among NASA astronauts (Shuttle and ISS), and he has his concerns about the viabiity of Commercial Crew. It's here at:http://www.space.com/20094-nasa-s-mo...skeptical-on-p...
He says he has no problem with "private" vehicles, but objects to
calling them "private" since the money is coming from NASA. *He seems to
be objecting to spending NASA money on Commercial Crew since, in his
view, it's taking money away from SLS and Orion, which could be used to
"accelerate" those programs.
He also objects because NASA won't have as much "insight into those
vehicles", I'm assuming he means when compared with Orion.
He's also objecting to them because he doesn't think they would be
economically viable without NASA's support.
He also poses the scenario that if a crew is lost (NASA or a private
crew), he believes that the company could not survive and would go out
of business.
I understand his point of view, but I'd like to note that the money
being spent on Commercial Crew is *tiny* compared to the overall
SLS/Orion budget. *So, from a cost/risk or cost/benefit point of view,
Commercial Crew is still a bet I'd take. *If it pays off, it will pay
off big. *If it doesn't pay off, then the US is back to (or still on)
Soyuz or on to Orion, if it's ready.
I'd also note that from the point of view of "safety", his fellow
astronauts are still flying on Soyuz, despite the lack of "insight into
those vehicles", and despite the number of close calls with Soyuz over
the life of the ISS program.
The bottom line for me with "safety" is, who would you rather deal with,
a US company or the Russians?

Jeff
--


Good analysis. I would also note that because of his age he is part
of the "old guard", and only wants things done the same way they were
done in the old days. The younger astronauts are more accepting of a
new approach to getting to space.


Bob Clark

In article ,
ess says...

On 7/03/2013 5:36 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:
Space.com had Jerry Ross, who has the most flight hours in space
among NASA astronauts (Shuttle and ISS), and he has his concerns
about the viabiity of Commercial Crew. It's here at:
http://www.space.com/20094-nasa-s-mo...ace-video.html


As far as safety goes, he'd have a stronger argument if NASA hadn't
killed two shuttle crew in manifestly avoidable accidents.

He'd also have a stronger argument if NASA wasn't flying astronauts on
Soyuz. Many of the same "problems" he has with commercial crew exist
for Soyuz as well. Firstly, we're paying cash to the Russians for those
flights (one objection he has with "commercial crew"). Secondly, we
don't have as much insight into the Soyuz launcher or the Soyuz manned
spacecraft as we would with a NASA designed and operated
launcher/spacecraft (another objection he has with "commercial crew").

Sure, NASA has a "track record" with the Russians, but that record is
absolutely *not* spotless. Based on its record, Soyuz is not perfect
and very well may kill a crew (as he fears "commercial crew" might do).
On top of that, the Russians have not been as forthcoming with
information on "near misses" with Soyuz as NASA would have liked.

For me, it boils down to who'd you rather deal with, a US company
providing a "commercial crew" mission to ISS, or the Russians providing
a Soyuz mission to ISS?

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
...


Sure, NASA has a "track record" with the Russians, but that record is
absolutely *not* spotless. Based on its record, Soyuz is not perfect
and very well may kill a crew (as he fears "commercial crew" might do).
On top of that, the Russians have not been as forthcoming with
information on "near misses" with Soyuz as NASA would have liked.


I also suspect when an accident happens, a US company is going to be more
forthcoming so they can end up proving their safety. And worse case, the
government will step in and do what they want.

In Russia, the conversation is apt to be much more one-sided.

"Don't worry comrade, we'll look into this and get back to you."


For me, it boils down to who'd you rather deal with, a US company
providing a "commercial crew" mission to ISS, or the Russians providing
a Soyuz mission to ISS?

Jeff

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

On Thursday, March 7, 2013 10:56:49 AM UTC-8, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message

...





Sure, NASA has a "track record" with the Russians, but that record is

absolutely *not* spotless. Based on its record, Soyuz is not perfect

and very well may kill a crew (as he fears "commercial crew" might do).

On top of that, the Russians have not been as forthcoming with

information on "near misses" with Soyuz as NASA would have liked.





I also suspect when an accident happens, a US company is going to be more

forthcoming so they can end up proving their safety. And worse case, the

government will step in and do what they want.



In Russia, the conversation is apt to be much more one-sided.



"Don't worry comrade, we'll look into this and get back to you."





For me, it boils down to who'd you rather deal with, a US company

providing a "commercial crew" mission to ISS, or the Russians providing

a Soyuz mission to ISS?



Jeff



--

Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/

CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

Anyone using Russian rocket engines? "Comrade, you have a no go as
you have no engines." Doesn't Orbital use Russian? Or are they
copies. Perhaps the Russians will win yet using private American enterprise
instead or in combination with Russian plutoprise (to coin a word).
Or is that Putinprise???

Pluto is an oid but he is rich.................Trig

just running thru..................Trig