Status and update article by Chris Gebhardt, and use of Nathan Koga's sexy L2 renders https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/06/commercial-crew-providers-significant-progress-flights/
“The other provider has placed a value on agility and rapid problem solving with beneficial results. They are also showing signs of evolving to reconcile their approach with the benefits and need for discipline and control.“However, they need to ensure that the evolution reflects an inherent desire to adopt the tenets of systems engineering.”
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 06/27/2017 06:18 pmStatus and update article by Chris Gebhardt, and use of Nathan Koga's sexy L2 renders https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/06/commercial-crew-providers-significant-progress-flights/Chris and Chris G: excellent article, as always. Keep up the good work.However, I'm annoyed about the remarks by Dr. Patricia Sanders quoted below:Quote“The other provider has placed a value on agility and rapid problem solving with beneficial results. They are also showing signs of evolving to reconcile their approach with the benefits and need for discipline and control.“However, they need to ensure that the evolution reflects an inherent desire to adopt the tenets of systems engineering.”It is another fine example of ASAP trying to stifle progress by expecting agile parties to adapt old-style rigidity.Very disappointing and one of the many reasons why I don't take ASAP for serious. Their stressing of safety is extreme, to the point that no manned spaceflight would be practically possible, if providers were to adhere to all of their recommendations.
I still don't understand the increased MMOD risk levels. Despite ~315 human flights and thousands of hours on orbit without even a close call to an MMOD LOC, why is it suddenly a huge risk and the responsibility of the CC providers. Shuttle flew 134 missions with it's especially fragile heat shield exposed to space and had no major MMOD incidents unless you consider a coolant loop puncture to be a "near miss" for LOC.I admit that I don't know how much protection is on the ISS modules, Shuttle Orbiter, Soyuz, etc. compared to what is on CST and Dragon. The new pressure vessels should be at least up to snuff compared to previous craft and some fraction of the protection the ISS modules have, but I have a hard time believing such protection levels weren't already planned.
Is the MMOD issue that increasing amounts of debris is increasing risk? If so then experience with shuttle may have limited value for future risk assessment.
Humor a space enthusiast with no aerospace background, how would Soyuz measure up to this standard? Thanks.
Quote from: jtrame on 06/27/2017 08:17 pmHumor a space enthusiast with no aerospace background, how would Soyuz measure up to this standard? Thanks.It does not. Not even close.
Is SpaceX still planning on doing an in-flight abort test or was that plan scrapped? I haven't heard much about that test in quite some time.
Quote from: intrepidpursuit on 06/27/2017 07:53 pmShuttle flew 134 missions with it's especially fragile heat shield exposed to space and had no major MMOD incidents unless you consider a coolant loop puncture to be a "near miss" for LOC.Actually, there have been close calls with MMOD strikes. The worst I know of was to STS-118, a hit to a radiator. The entry measured 8.1 mm by 6.4 mm, but the exit hole through the radiator’s backside facesheet measured 14 mm by 14 mm. It was centimeters away from the main coolant loop. A hit to the coolant loop would have caused loss of mission, NASA protocols would have called for an immediate deorbiting of the Shuttle. Had that hit been to a window, the crew could have perished.
Shuttle flew 134 missions with it's especially fragile heat shield exposed to space and had no major MMOD incidents unless you consider a coolant loop puncture to be a "near miss" for LOC.
Quote from: spacetraveler on 06/27/2017 10:02 pmIs SpaceX still planning on doing an in-flight abort test or was that plan scrapped? I haven't heard much about that test in quite some time.They're not doing it anymore. Kathy Lueders talked about this to the media in late-May. In-flight abort test is not mandated by the CCtCap contracts; it was something extra the two providers aimed to do.
I thought Shotwell confirmed that the in-flight abort is scheduled for H1 2018 on The Space Show interview recently. I remember her saying all 3 missions (DM-1, inflight abort, and DM-2) were scheduled for H1 2018.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/27/2017 08:21 pmIs the MMOD issue that increasing amounts of debris is increasing risk? If so then experience with shuttle may have limited value for future risk assessment.This is one of the reasons why there are MMOD models that produce conflicting results.
Had that hit been to a window, the crew could have perished.
They're not doing it anymore. Kathy Lueders talked about this to the media in late-May. In-flight abort test is not mandated by the CCtCap contracts; it was something extra the two providers aimed to do.
And it seems we have a conflict in sources saying different things. 5 days ago, Shotwell said in-flight abort is still happening.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 06/27/2017 08:53 pmHad that hit been to a window, the crew could have perished. So this was worse than strikes that did happen to orbiter's windows?The reason I ask is reading articles on the orbiters windows made it sound that the multiple layers could take a lot. Never occured to me that the radiator strike was large and energetic enough to take out a window. Trying to learn.
Quote from: Lars-J on 06/27/2017 09:42 pmQuote from: jtrame on 06/27/2017 08:17 pmHumor a space enthusiast with no aerospace background, how would Soyuz measure up to this standard? Thanks.It does not. Not even close.http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?letter=E&classic=YES&bibcode=2012ESASP.699E..32L&page=&type=SCREEN_VIEW&data_type=PDF_HIGH&send=GET&filetype=.pdfCorrect. However, it's not like there's much a choice for the time being, as we all know.
Quote from: tvg98 on 06/27/2017 10:01 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 06/27/2017 09:42 pmQuote from: jtrame on 06/27/2017 08:17 pmHumor a space enthusiast with no aerospace background, how would Soyuz measure up to this standard? Thanks.It does not. Not even close.http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?letter=E&classic=YES&bibcode=2012ESASP.699E..32L&page=&type=SCREEN_VIEW&data_type=PDF_HIGH&send=GET&filetype=.pdfCorrect. However, it's not like there's much a choice for the time being, as we all know.If MMOD is the bottleneck for commercial crew, then we ABSOLUTELY have a choice: Use commercial crew which might struggle to meet the arbitrary MMOD threshold or continue to use Soyuz, which doesn't get anywhere close.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/27/2017 07:11 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 06/27/2017 06:18 pmStatus and update article by Chris Gebhardt, and use of Nathan Koga's sexy L2 renders https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/06/commercial-crew-providers-significant-progress-flights/Chris and Chris G: excellent article, as always. Keep up the good work.However, I'm annoyed about the remarks by Dr. Patricia Sanders quoted below:Quote“The other provider has placed a value on agility and rapid problem solving with beneficial results. They are also showing signs of evolving to reconcile their approach with the benefits and need for discipline and control.“However, they need to ensure that the evolution reflects an inherent desire to adopt the tenets of systems engineering.”It is another fine example of ASAP trying to stifle progress by expecting agile parties to adapt old-style rigidity.Very disappointing and one of the many reasons why I don't take ASAP for serious. Their stressing of safety is extreme, to the point that no manned spaceflight would be practically possible, if providers were to adhere to all of their recommendations.Completely agree.But I'll go a step further: “However, they need to ensure that the evolution reflects an inherent desire to adopt the tenets of systems engineering.”...those are the words of someone indoctrinated into a religion, not just someone who is very cautious.It is definitely possible that "adopting the tenets of systems engineering" is a good way to end up less safe at the end of the day. For example, if SLS/Orion is the product of "adopting the tenets of systems engineering," then SpaceX is already WAY safer simply because they have a rocket that can afford to fly more than once before crew are put on board.
It is definitely possible that "adopting the tenets of systems engineering" is a good way to end up less safe at the end of the day. For example, if SLS/Orion is the product of "adopting the tenets of systems engineering," then SpaceX is already WAY safer simply because they have a rocket that can afford to fly more than once before crew are put on board.
1. My guess, the Soyuz would not meet these standards.2. The shuttle data is a great baseline.IMO.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/27/2017 07:11 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 06/27/2017 06:18 pmStatus and update article by Chris Gebhardt, and use of Nathan Koga's sexy L2 renders https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/06/commercial-crew-providers-significant-progress-flights/Chris and Chris G: excellent article, as always. Keep up the good work.However, I'm annoyed about the remarks by Dr. Patricia Sanders quoted below:Quote“The other provider has placed a value on agility and rapid problem solving with beneficial results. They are also showing signs of evolving to reconcile their approach with the benefits and need for discipline and control.“However, they need to ensure that the evolution reflects an inherent desire to adopt the tenets of systems engineering.”It is another fine example of ASAP trying to stifle progress by expecting agile parties to adapt old-style rigidity.Very disappointing and one of the many reasons why I don't take ASAP for serious. Their stressing of safety is extreme, to the point that no manned spaceflight would be practically possible, if providers were to adhere to all of their recommendations.ASAPs desired crew vehicle for trips to space
Quote from: ChrisGebhardt on 06/27/2017 10:06 pmQuote from: spacetraveler on 06/27/2017 10:02 pmIs SpaceX still planning on doing an in-flight abort test or was that plan scrapped? I haven't heard much about that test in quite some time.They're not doing it anymore. Kathy Lueders talked about this to the media in late-May. In-flight abort test is not mandated by the CCtCap contracts; it was something extra the two providers aimed to do.Only SpaceX has an in-flight abort test on the schedule. So, provider, as opposed to providers.Also, if Gwynne is to be believed than the in-flight abort test is still on.
Question about these two statements from the article: "Presently, ... the Starliner STA (Structural Test Article) is progressing through its test regime.""...the builds for Starliner spacecrafts two and three are progressing"So it seems Boeing expects the STA testing is merely a formality and they don't expect to learn anything from it that would affect spacecraft manufacture? Just validating software models?I'm curious if Orion and Dragon had concurrent builds of flight hardware prior to STA testing being complete. Is it common aerospace procedure?edit: grammar
Is it common aerospace procedure?
AIUI, the majority of the risk comes from MMOD damage to the heatshield causing an entry anomaly. This is roughly proportional to total time on orbit (which is much longer than Shuttle), not crewed time on orbit (which is much shorter than Shuttle).
MMOD damage to the heatshields of vehicles that still have their trunks or service modules attached should be non-existent. Therefore this should not be a factor in calculating LOC numbers.
Quote from: clongton on 07/12/2017 06:41 pmMMOD damage to the heatshields of vehicles that still have their trunks or service modules attached should be non-existent. Therefore this should not be a factor in calculating LOC numbers.That's not what I gather from:https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/05/eft-1-orion-inspections-vital-mmod-information/and https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/08/nasa-mmod-primary-threat-crew-vehicles/Backshell TPS is also at risk. I could be misinterpreting those though.
Quote from: envy887 on 07/12/2017 07:06 pmQuote from: clongton on 07/12/2017 06:41 pmMMOD damage to the heatshields of vehicles that still have their trunks or service modules attached should be non-existent. Therefore this should not be a factor in calculating LOC numbers.That's not what I gather from:https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/05/eft-1-orion-inspections-vital-mmod-information/and https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/08/nasa-mmod-primary-threat-crew-vehicles/Backshell TPS is also at risk. I could be misinterpreting those though.There have been 50 Soyuz missions to ISS and 30 Soyuz missions to Mir. These missions typically last about 5 to 6 months. How many of them were severely damaged by MMOD? AFAIK, none. It doesn't look like ASAP is using any of that data.
Quote from: RonM on 07/12/2017 07:53 pmQuote from: envy887 on 07/12/2017 07:06 pmQuote from: clongton on 07/12/2017 06:41 pmMMOD damage to the heatshields of vehicles that still have their trunks or service modules attached should be non-existent. Therefore this should not be a factor in calculating LOC numbers.That's not what I gather from:https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/05/eft-1-orion-inspections-vital-mmod-information/and https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/08/nasa-mmod-primary-threat-crew-vehicles/Backshell TPS is also at risk. I could be misinterpreting those though.There have been 50 Soyuz missions to ISS and 30 Soyuz missions to Mir. These missions typically last about 5 to 6 months. How many of them were severely damaged by MMOD? AFAIK, none. It doesn't look like ASAP is using any of that data.Just because there hasn't been a loss of a Soyuz from MMOD doesn't mean there is no risk. Also the debris environment around the ISS / LEO in general is worse now than it ever has been, which is a part of the issue. There are MMOD models that output different risk factors depending on assumptions made about the amount and location of debris hazards. For example, fine debris from the Chinese ASAT test is slowly coming closer to Earth, but exactly where it is, how big the particles are, and how fast the orbital decay rate for the debris is a matter of some guesswork. How you model those parameters can change the risk level.
Um, not just no loss of Soyuz (which would require more than just what we might call major MMOD), but no major damage to any Soyuz OR Progress from MMOD EVER. There have been hundreds of flights.Shuttle's black, fragile and exposed heatshield is 400 times the area of the little bit of Dragon's tougher PICA heatshield that is protected by a metal covering but isn't covered by the trunk. Also, you can see at least half of it clearly from at least one window.
Could get trapped and suffocated by the blankets.
Quote“The other provider has placed a value on agility and rapid problem solving with beneficial results. They are also showing signs of evolving to reconcile their approach with the benefits and need for discipline and control.“However, they need to ensure that the evolution reflects an inherent desire to adopt the tenets of systems engineering.”Uh, yeh. I'm glad that SpaceX is never going to adopt the "tenets of systems engineering" while Musk is in charge.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 06/29/2017 12:05 amQuote“The other provider has placed a value on agility and rapid problem solving with beneficial results. They are also showing signs of evolving to reconcile their approach with the benefits and need for discipline and control.“However, they need to ensure that the evolution reflects an inherent desire to adopt the tenets of systems engineering.”Uh, yeh. I'm glad that SpaceX is never going to adopt the "tenets of systems engineering" while Musk is in charge.And that is why they had and will have more failures
Quote from: Jim on 07/13/2017 01:29 pmQuote from: RedLineTrain on 06/29/2017 12:05 amQuote“The other provider has placed a value on agility and rapid problem solving with beneficial results. They are also showing signs of evolving to reconcile their approach with the benefits and need for discipline and control.“However, they need to ensure that the evolution reflects an inherent desire to adopt the tenets of systems engineering.”Uh, yeh. I'm glad that SpaceX is never going to adopt the "tenets of systems engineering" while Musk is in charge.And that is why they had and will have more failuresULA will too.
The attitude at NASA seems to be "Failure is not an option". ISTM that attitude stifles the kind of creativity needed to really advance. The Spacex attitude seems to be "Failure is an option, quitting is not".
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 07/12/2017 08:45 pmQuote from: RonM on 07/12/2017 07:53 pmQuote from: envy887 on 07/12/2017 07:06 pmQuote from: clongton on 07/12/2017 06:41 pmMMOD damage to the heatshields of vehicles that still have their trunks or service modules attached should be non-existent. Therefore this should not be a factor in calculating LOC numbers.That's not what I gather from:https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/05/eft-1-orion-inspections-vital-mmod-information/and https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/08/nasa-mmod-primary-threat-crew-vehicles/Backshell TPS is also at risk. I could be misinterpreting those though.There have been 50 Soyuz missions to ISS and 30 Soyuz missions to Mir. These missions typically last about 5 to 6 months. How many of them were severely damaged by MMOD? AFAIK, none. It doesn't look like ASAP is using any of that data.Just because there hasn't been a loss of a Soyuz from MMOD doesn't mean there is no risk. Also the debris environment around the ISS / LEO in general is worse now than it ever has been, which is a part of the issue. There are MMOD models that output different risk factors depending on assumptions made about the amount and location of debris hazards. For example, fine debris from the Chinese ASAT test is slowly coming closer to Earth, but exactly where it is, how big the particles are, and how fast the orbital decay rate for the debris is a matter of some guesswork. How you model those parameters can change the risk level.Who said it was no risk? The point - unless I am misunderstanding - was merely that after ~100 flights we starting to have a decent sample to give us data to see if the cited danger is as dangerous as claimed.
Quote from: AbuSimbel on 07/13/2017 03:02 pmQuote from: Jim on 07/13/2017 01:29 pmQuote from: RedLineTrain on 06/29/2017 12:05 amQuote“The other provider has placed a value on agility and rapid problem solving with beneficial results. They are also showing signs of evolving to reconcile their approach with the benefits and need for discipline and control.“However, they need to ensure that the evolution reflects an inherent desire to adopt the tenets of systems engineering.”Uh, yeh. I'm glad that SpaceX is never going to adopt the "tenets of systems engineering" while Musk is in charge.And that is why they had and will have more failuresULA will too.I would suggest you don't get in a ULA commercial crew vehicle then.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/13/2017 01:16 pmQuote from: clongton on 07/13/2017 12:14 pmWell shucks, buttercup. If there's the slightest chance that someone might get hurt by riding one of these things then maybe we should just skip this and go fishing instead. Be careful of that there hook young fella. It's got a sharp pointy end on it that could hurt if you stuck yourself with it. Come to think about it, let's just forget about fishing and go take a nap. What could go wrong with that? Could get trapped and suffocated by the blankets.Particularly if you put baby face down...
Quote from: clongton on 07/13/2017 12:14 pmWell shucks, buttercup. If there's the slightest chance that someone might get hurt by riding one of these things then maybe we should just skip this and go fishing instead. Be careful of that there hook young fella. It's got a sharp pointy end on it that could hurt if you stuck yourself with it. Come to think about it, let's just forget about fishing and go take a nap. What could go wrong with that? Could get trapped and suffocated by the blankets.
Well shucks, buttercup. If there's the slightest chance that someone might get hurt by riding one of these things then maybe we should just skip this and go fishing instead. Be careful of that there hook young fella. It's got a sharp pointy end on it that could hurt if you stuck yourself with it. Come to think about it, let's just forget about fishing and go take a nap. What could go wrong with that?
Quote from: Lars-J on 07/12/2017 10:08 pmWho said it was no risk? The point - unless I am misunderstanding - was merely that after ~100 flights we starting to have a decent sample to give us data to see if the cited danger is as dangerous as claimed.Which it is, since a hit to a critical system will kill the crew. The fact that it hasn't happened yet doesn't make it any less hazardous, just ask the crew of the Columbia.
Who said it was no risk? The point - unless I am misunderstanding - was merely that after ~100 flights we starting to have a decent sample to give us data to see if the cited danger is as dangerous as claimed.
You completely ignore the other point, that the debris environment is getting worse.
The points is to be aware of the risks and take reasonable precautions. The people here who are dissing ASAP are not unaware of the risks... We (or at least I) wish they would be more practical in their recommendations.
Quote from: Lars-J on 07/12/2017 10:08 pmWho said it was no risk? The point - unless I am misunderstanding - was merely that after ~100 flights we starting to have a decent sample to give us data to see if the cited danger is as dangerous as claimed.Which it is, since a hit to a critical system will kill the crew. The fact that it hasn't happened yet doesn't make it any less hazardous, just ask the crew of the Columbia. You completely ignore the other point, that the debris environment is getting worse.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 07/13/2017 03:39 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 07/12/2017 10:08 pmWho said it was no risk? The point - unless I am misunderstanding - was merely that after ~100 flights we starting to have a decent sample to give us data to see if the cited danger is as dangerous as claimed.Which it is, since a hit to a critical system will kill the crew. The fact that it hasn't happened yet doesn't make it any less hazardous, just ask the crew of the Columbia. You completely ignore the other point, that the debris environment is getting worse.I think terminology has to be clarified here. Risk is formally defined as consequence times probability. The consequence is obviously very high. The data should be able to tell us probability, which seems like it shouldn't be too high. What is really being discussed here is the probability, and "hasn't happened yet" does tell us something about that.
One of the witnesses today talked about NASA being too risk averse. Failure must be an option again. People will die.
Quote from: guckyfan on 07/13/2017 03:45 pmOne of the witnesses today talked about NASA being too risk averse. Failure must be an option again. People will die.And that cavalier attitude will get the commercial program killed much faster than any extra requirements from NASA.
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 07/15/2017 04:15 pmQuote from: guckyfan on 07/13/2017 03:45 pmOne of the witnesses today talked about NASA being too risk averse. Failure must be an option again. People will die.And that cavalier attitude will get the commercial program killed much faster than any extra requirements from NASA.It wasn't cavalier. Watch the video.And he's absolutely right.
They called them "space tourists" and bad mouthed them. Only NASA space professionals, etc can go into space. It did not matter they had months of training as flight engineers.
NASA has become so "risk adverse", they will do anything to hold up US crewed flight.
They called them "space tourists"
We are going to lose people in space and nothing we do will avoid this fact.
NASA needs to get out of the way of crewed flight. I do not see them as the solution but the problem. I see the private companies leading us into crewed missions. SpaceX will have a colony set up on Mars before the first NASA Mars flight. It is the same for the other companies.
Well without NASA there would be no crewed US flight, either now or in the future. Badmouth NASA all you like but without it there would be no commercial crew program. As for private companies going to Mars without any NASA support I find that extremely unlikely. Mars missions won't be cheap and it makes far more sense for private companies to collaborate with NASA than to try to do it all on their own.
Yes and No.
Space X has planned to send people into space before commercial crew. However it would have taken longer and been more risky(i.e. more likely not to happen). In fact it has been possible for Space X to send a man into space without much work since the Dragon 1. The way it would have happened without Commercial Crew would be Space X develops the F1 and sells some launches at a profit, gets some private Capital(and/or Government funding via Air Force or DARPA) to develop the F5 and later F9(Which is the launcher that would get him into the meat of the launch market). Elon diverts revenue from the F9 to the development of the Dragon Capsule.
Given advances it should indeed be possible to get to Mars just the way that right now it is very possible that tourist will loop around the moon in a privately owned spacecraft.
NASA has become so "risk adverse", they will do anything to hold up US crewed flight. I still remember the first privately funded seats to the the ISS. They called them "space tourists" and bad mouthed them. Only NASA space professionals, etc can go into space. It did not matter they had months of training as flight engineers. We are going to lose people in space and nothing we do will avoid this fact. NASA needs to get out of the way of crewed flight. I do not see them as the solution but the problem. Congress has to get out of designing spacecraft. They can only think of providing pork for their own districts. As for Orion it should be canceled as a waste of taxpayer funds. It is obsolete before its first flight.I see the private companies leading us into crewed missions. SpaceX will have a colony set up on Mars before the first NASA Mars flight. It is the same for the other companies. Again we will lose people but life is dangerous even if it is just driving to the supermarket.
Quote from: AnnK on 07/18/2017 12:05 amNASA has become so "risk adverse", they will do anything to hold up US crewed flight. I still remember the first privately funded seats to the the ISS. They called them "space tourists" and bad mouthed them. Only NASA space professionals, etc can go into space. It did not matter they had months of training as flight engineers. We are going to lose people in space and nothing we do will avoid this fact. NASA needs to get out of the way of crewed flight. I do not see them as the solution but the problem. Congress has to get out of designing spacecraft. They can only think of providing pork for their own districts. As for Orion it should be canceled as a waste of taxpayer funds. It is obsolete before its first flight.I see the private companies leading us into crewed missions. SpaceX will have a colony set up on Mars before the first NASA Mars flight. It is the same for the other companies. Again we will lose people but life is dangerous even if it is just driving to the supermarket. NASA has become averse to adverse missions. I remember the days of STS that sent human on test flights with pressure suits and ejection seats and operational missions with no chance of crew escape while powered. To now, where we wont send a crew on first flight, even with the vehicle having a complete crew escape system.We need to attempt to preserve the safety of space crews. But our goals in space should not be diluted due to the inability to stomach the mere possibility of the loss of human life. Great rewards often REQUIRE great risk, the key is to mitigate as much risk as possible, while still meeting mission requirements.Maybe its the public that is too blame? Do we tell the politicians that it's unacceptable for Astronauts to die while at work? IF this is true, perhaps the commercial sector will have the advantage if it is less susceptible to political pressures?I am not being callous here, I just happen to have a background that has provided me with the gumption to understand that sometimes mission success may cost men and women their lives. I'd bet that people with any history of being a service member including the Astronauts themselves understand this as well. Let's support NASA and its workers, lets support their unique understanding and skill sets and not be impediments.
Quote from: Hog on 07/22/2017 11:18 amQuote from: AnnK on 07/18/2017 12:05 amNASA has become so "risk adverse", they will do anything to hold up US crewed flight. I still remember the first privately funded seats to the the ISS. They called them "space tourists" and bad mouthed them. Only NASA space professionals, etc can go into space. It did not matter they had months of training as flight engineers. We are going to lose people in space and nothing we do will avoid this fact. NASA needs to get out of the way of crewed flight. I do not see them as the solution but the problem. Congress has to get out of designing spacecraft. They can only think of providing pork for their own districts. As for Orion it should be canceled as a waste of taxpayer funds. It is obsolete before its first flight.I see the private companies leading us into crewed missions. SpaceX will have a colony set up on Mars before the first NASA Mars flight. It is the same for the other companies. Again we will lose people but life is dangerous even if it is just driving to the supermarket. NASA has become averse to adverse missions. I remember the days of STS that sent human on test flights with pressure suits and ejection seats and operational missions with no chance of crew escape while powered. To now, where we wont send a crew on first flight, even with the vehicle having a complete crew escape system.We need to attempt to preserve the safety of space crews. But our goals in space should not be diluted due to the inability to stomach the mere possibility of the loss of human life. Great rewards often REQUIRE great risk, the key is to mitigate as much risk as possible, while still meeting mission requirements.Maybe its the public that is too blame? Do we tell the politicians that it's unacceptable for Astronauts to die while at work? IF this is true, perhaps the commercial sector will have the advantage if it is less susceptible to political pressures?I am not being callous here, I just happen to have a background that has provided me with the gumption to understand that sometimes mission success may cost men and women their lives. I'd bet that people with any history of being a service member including the Astronauts themselves understand this as well. Let's support NASA and its workers, lets support their unique understanding and skill sets and not be impediments. Taking shortcuts is the fastest way to get people killed -- and for no reason other than space enthusiast impatience. Getting people killed is also the fastest way to losing public support, and public funding, resulting in program cancellations.
Despite taking shortcuts and getting people killed (twice! ) the space shuttle enjoyed broad public support until the very end. So where does that leave your assumption?