More Inconsistencies From the Ares 1 Risk Guru

> For example, the capsule designers have to carefully study the conditions following an accident, including the blast heat, fragments of the disintegrating booster and the pressure wave of an explosion. While they do not matter for cargo, "the crew cares tremendously about what the conditions are, because it relates to their survivability," Dr. Fragola said."

Or maybe SpaceX was smart enough to not use a gigantic solid rocket booster (with its corresponding difficult-to-survive failure modes) as its first stage?

Its pretty easy for Space X and other private commercial manned spaceflight companies to resolve this issue. All they have to do is routinely launch humans into to orbit and bring them back safely to the Earth.

It would be foolish of the US government to completely abandon its manned spaceflight capability, hoping that these unnecessary private middlemen will provide services that are safer and cheaper than what NASA can do.

Marcel F. Williams

Williams, you just don't understand how NASA and contractors operate. You continue to make incorrect statements and it make you look foolish. NASA is the unnecessary middlemen. NASA does not need to operating launch vehicles

A lot of us here DO understand firsthand how NASA and contractors operate, specifically NASA and their HSF contractors, and Mr. Williams statement is correct.

Methinks you however, are on the hsf sidelines.

well, Fragola certainly does have credibility problems - and obviously Hanley & Cooke etc do too

my take on it, each side (CxP vs. Merchant7) is correct about the other side and neither side will succeed.

really need to go traditional NASA (not-CxP) next-gen shuttle and/or next-gen Apollo for the immediate next 10 yrs. term, and R&D for the long haul to the wherever in the great beyond

Soooooo, what exactly were the other proposals that lost out when CxP was awarded???????

AnObamanut,
It is your understanding of an outdated paradigm is why you will be out of a job. Both you and Williams are wrong. Like Griffin said there no differences in the processes used for HSF and unmanned missions. It was the clutching to archaic ways that cause problems early in OSP program. The HSF mafia that said that EELV's and their processes weren't good enough. The same shrill voices are saying the same thing about commercial space.

> Soooooo, what exactly were the other proposals that lost out when CxP was awarded???????

The pre-ESAS VSE proposals are all available online. It's quite interesting to see all the planning and study which Michael Griffin threw out the window to pursue his own pet project:

(Midterm reports are from Dec. 2004, and the final reports are from March 2005)

http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_midterm/Boeing.pdf
http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_midterm/Andrews.pdf
http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_midterm/tSpace.pdf
http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_midterm/Lockheed_Martin.pdf
http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_midterm/Raytheon.pdf
http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_midterm/Orbital_Sciences.pdf
http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_midterm/SAIC.pdf
http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_midterm/Northrop_Grumman.pdf
http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_midterm/Schafer.pdf
http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_final/Lockheed_Martin.pdf
http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_final/Boeing.pdf
http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_final/tSpace.pdf
http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_final/Schafer.pdf

SpaceX does not need NASA to fly people into space. NASA will make requirements that SpaceX will try to conform to; however, there is nothing from Elon and SpaceX from having SpaceX employees fly into space instead of NASA astronauts.

That is the reality.

SpaceX and Falcon 9 launch from CCAFS, not Kennedy. NASA needs indigenous HSF capability. SpaceX MAY provide it. Do not forget EELV, many feel that EELV could be ready even sooner than Falcon 9. But even then, if NASA drives a ton of additional requirements driving up the price, will EELV build this capability?

There are a lot of good people at NASA trapped in the bureaucracy. Dr. Fragola is trying to secure his position in the bureaucracy. What he doesn't realize is that this is a brave new world. There are many people who want to fly to space.

We can stay stuck on safety or take risks. Is Falcon 9 as safe as the Chinese booster? I don't know, I want to find out though.

VR
RS327

Leaving aside Fragola's credibility issue, I didn't read anything in the NYT that was terribly inflammatory. I also think that a vehicle that has flown dozens of times with a good track record could be considered "safer" than one that has yet to fly (Ares I, Falcon 9, anything else) simply because there are a lot more unknown unknowns in the vehicle that has yet to fly (or has flown very little).

Clearly the Falcon 9 will have many flights with cargo from many customers well before any humans are launched on board, and as with the Falcon 1, I would not be surprised to see some failures and set backs early on as issues are discovered and resolved.

And SpaceX is a young company, and I am sure they will work with NASA and other government agencies to workout safety mechanisms and procedures for human spaceflight (for NASA and private commercial use).

oooooooh - a Griffinite - well that explains it, LoL!) don't know what you're talking about, have no idea of the real hsf world, but have lots-o-theories with no basis in reality

hey, denial-brain - NASA's HSF success for the past 50 yrs., unmatched by any other country or company, speak for themselves

"We can stay stuck on safety or"

Exactly (and that's the bottom line folks!)

327:

As I have stated before, the privitization/commercialization of the astronaut corps needs to be addressed.

"...I wonder if the the red-headed, step-child LSP model is going to be used. Probably not because it's not a "manned" program.

I think the only way to pull this off without NASA destroying the beginning of a great idea is to privatize the astronauts as well. Just a thought. NASA can swing a huge hammer when it's THEIR people taking the risk. Not that it has helped matters in the past.

Becoming a NASA astronaut on an ACTUAL MISSION seems to be more of a political endurance test than being anything exceptional these days."

@Me,

Excuse me but NASA is the people's space program. They actually put people on the Moon-- they didn't just talk about it!

Your anti-government extremism is the real problem. If you hate government by the people, for the people, and of the people-- so much-- then why don't you go to a place like Somalia where they don't have any government! Its a libertarian paradise that I'm sure you'd enjoy!

Marcel F. Williams

AnObamanaut,

"NASA's HSF success for the past 50 yrs"
Yes, we know what that is, disregarding a contractor's advise and killing 7 astronauts. Yes, the NASA HSF processes are so infallible, that no one else can replicate it successfully. Wrong!

FYI, not a Griffinite and far from it, just like using his own words against his projects. BTW, I have worked in the HSF world and the processes are overblown.

@Me

Certainly they can be "replicated", it just takes time and money. A lot more than what it takes to fly cargo only. With cargo you only care about reliability. In HSF, you need to take into account crew safety, which means it's not just about IF you fail, its also about HOW you will fail and the impact it has on crew survivability. This adds a whole new dimension to design and operations. Crew safety and reliability are intertwined in such a way that makes design for HSF an order of magnitude more difficult. That is all that Joe Fragola was trying to point out.

"Becoming a NASA astronaut on an ACTUAL MISSION seems to be more of a political endurance test than being anything exceptional these days."

Nothing can be further from the truth. I work with these astronauts on a daily basis and understand very intimately what goes into selecting crew members for a mission. Now, WRT the idea of private astronauts; that's all fine and dandy, but if they want to fly to the ISS (which is still primarily NASA-owned/funded) they must either a.) be a NASA trained and selected astronaut, or b.) be a private astronaut trained and certified by NASA to work on the U.S. owned systems. The international partners are all responsible for their own systems training, so if they (the private astros) want to use Japanese or European technologies on the ISS, then JAXA and/or ESA will have to train them.

Let's not forget that the ISS is still a NASA/US. Government owned and operated vehicle. Now, before people start screaming about the Russian tourists, I would like to point out the fact that they (the tourists) keep mainly to the Russian segments and are not allowed to do anything with the US portion of the space station.

-TechBoi

Keith's note: TechBoi the ISS is *not* a NASA/US government owned and operated vehicle. Rather, only portions are owned by the U.S. while others are owned by Russia, Japan, ESA, CSA, etc. However, it is operated - jointly - by all of the partners in the U.S. Russia, and elsewhere - all of whom pay a representative portion of the common operations cost. You might want to check with your management on this. This is how it has been done in the space station program for decades.

"NASA is the people's space program." It is not, it is the US Gov't's. And this government, by the people, for the people, and of the people is changing how conducts its business, in light that it should not be doing things that private industry does. The gov't does not operate airlines or trucklines and neither should it be operating space launch lines.

What anti-government extremism? I have only advocate the gov't doing only things that gov't do and spacelaunch is no long one of them. I still expect the gov't to fund exploration of space, it just does not need to be an operator.

The opportunity here is if it's as cheaper to use commercial launchers (including HLV), then NASA has more money for payloads.

Space exploration should be about expensive payloads, not expensive rockets.

If I may, I believe the real objection here is that the New York Times would quote Fragola at all. By using a questionable source, even for a relatively innocuous comment, this calls the author's credibility into question.

Seems that both sides of the HSF debate are talking past each other. This is what the political process is for, to resolve such issues. I'm afraid it really doesn't look good for the Constellation crowd, though. Forget the massive Democratic majority and the fact conservatives are split on the issue; calmer voices are pointing out how both Texas and Alabama have something to gain to offset their losses (JSC will win big in robotics, and Decatur AL is the production site for ULA). Only in Florida are the losses irreversible, but those losses come from the end of the Shuttle and not the death of Constellation. A shuttle extension of two flights (more is hard and expensive) would calm the Florida delegation down, and ensure an easy passage of commercial space through Congress.

You can fight for Constellation, but it will be in vain. Flags and stunts won't carry the day, and those of us who yearn for human colonization of the solar system are already getting busy crafting the systems that will get us there.

The government does operate its own aircraft services? Ever hear about the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines? And these services don't need to be taken over by United Airlines or South West or Blackwater.

NASA's not running a commercial spaceline service and probably shouldn't. NASA's transporting its own government workers to government facilities. They don't need some private middleman to do this for them. And there's no logical reason to say that the US government should only travel into space on rockets owned and operated by the corporations.

Private industry needs to focus on space tourism and commercial satellite launches and be-- thankful-- to the Federal government and to the tax payers for supplying them with some of the funds they need to develop their space ventures.

America needs both space pioneers (NASA) and space privateers. They should not be mutually exclusive.

Marcel F. Williams

You certainly don't understand private enterprise. If you've worked for government agencies your whole career, you've practically wasted your life. You don't get it.

"You can fight for Constellation, but it will be in vain. Flags and stunts won't carry the day, and those of us who yearn for human colonization of the solar system"

I so agree with that part of the statement.

Only 2 routes to anything beyond LEO plain and simple.

cheap to LEO or Refueling in LEO or both ( in a perfect world)

Those are two problem that should have been NASA's top priority for the last 40 years.

Instead with budget constraints and lack of vision beyond STS, here we are. DAMN that Gravity!

"The government does operate its own aircraft services? Wrong analogy. NASA is not the military and I said airlines. But then the military does use airlines. My son returned from Iraq today on a commercial airline.

"NASA's transporting its own government workers to government facilities."
That is a lame and insufficient reason. And it is illogical too. I don't fly on a NASA plane when I go from KSC to JSC. There is no reason an astronaut has to fly on a NASA spacecraft. More so, "there's no logical reason to say that the US government should only travel into space on rockets owned and operated by the" gov't.

Also using the term "middleman" for private companies is asinine and completely wrong. NASA is the middleman. Who launches and operates the shuttle? United Space Alliance, a private company, not NASA. It would be cheaper and more efficient if NASA were hands off. NASA just gets in its way.

Unmatched in terms of cost or loss of life?