Author Topic: GAO Feb 2017 report on commercial crew  (Read 11623 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26451
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6367
  • Likes Given: 4636
Re: GAO Feb 2017 report on commercial crew
« Reply #40 on: 06/10/2017 08:01 PM »
I still don't see how loss of vehicle while at the ISS automatically means loss of crew.  It's like someone is stacking the deck.

Unstack the deck by keeping one F9 + Dragon 2 in storage at all times, ready to deploy to get the crew if there is a problem during ISS stay? :)
Compound conservatism. LOC keeps getting more things added to it. Soyuz has had some pretty rough landings where the crew survived that'd probably be counted as Loss Of Crew in the analysis here because the crew were injured. I was surprised to hear that "LOC" didn't necessarily mean the crew was dead, which is the only real sensible definition IMHO.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2774
  • Liked: 525
  • Likes Given: 326
Re: GAO Feb 2017 report on commercial crew
« Reply #41 on: 06/11/2017 10:17 AM »
I still don't see how loss of vehicle while at the ISS automatically means loss of crew.

It doesn't mean automatic LOC.  Where is that interpretation coming from?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7434
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1432
  • Likes Given: 4455
Re: GAO Feb 2017 report on commercial crew
« Reply #42 on: 06/13/2017 01:31 PM »
Take a punctured capsule and add an evacuation emergency-> LOC. Even on might generate the other, a hit in the propellant tanks, for example. Something hitting the docking collar. A longitudinal piercing that takes both part of the ISS and Capsule's pressure vessels. Etc.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7725
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2043
  • Likes Given: 4743
Re: GAO Feb 2017 report on commercial crew
« Reply #43 on: 06/13/2017 01:51 PM »
If we had went with ASAP during Apollo, the Moon would perpetually be 20 years away and as for Mars... forget about it...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1464
  • US
  • Liked: 948
  • Likes Given: 775
Re: GAO Feb 2017 report on commercial crew
« Reply #44 on: 06/13/2017 01:55 PM »
If we had went with ASAP during Apollo, the Moon would perpetually be 20 years away and as for Mars... forget about it...

ASAP is an advisory body, they don't make the final decision.  If it's not reasonable to reach the planned LOC numbers for commercial crew then there will likely just be waivers granted to meet a lower number.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: GAO Feb 2017 report on commercial crew
« Reply #45 on: 06/13/2017 02:06 PM »
If we had went with ASAP during Apollo, the Moon would perpetually be 20 years away and as for Mars... forget about it...

NASA ASAP was formed in 1968 subsequent to the investigation of the Apollo 1 fire. NASA ASAP had a great deal of influence on the later portion of the Apollo program, their safety recommendations are a part of the reason why Apollo was a success. NASA ASAP's first formal report in 1971 covers recommendations made for Apollos 15 and 16, for example.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7725
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2043
  • Likes Given: 4743
Re: GAO Feb 2017 report on commercial crew
« Reply #46 on: 06/13/2017 02:29 PM »
If we had went with ASAP during Apollo, the Moon would perpetually be 20 years away and as for Mars... forget about it...

NASA ASAP was formed in 1968 subsequent to the investigation of the Apollo 1 fire. NASA ASAP had a great deal of influence on the later portion of the Apollo program, their safety recommendations are a part of the reason why Apollo was a success. NASA ASAP's first formal report in 1971 covers recommendations made for Apollos 15 and 16, for example.
If they were involved in the initial RTF we probably would still not have landed on the Moon in 1969... I've said this before over the years, they are "a self licking ice-cream cone"  IMHO...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline whitelancer64

Re: GAO Feb 2017 report on commercial crew
« Reply #47 on: 06/13/2017 05:23 PM »
If we had went with ASAP during Apollo, the Moon would perpetually be 20 years away and as for Mars... forget about it...

NASA ASAP was formed in 1968 subsequent to the investigation of the Apollo 1 fire. NASA ASAP had a great deal of influence on the later portion of the Apollo program, their safety recommendations are a part of the reason why Apollo was a success. NASA ASAP's first formal report in 1971 covers recommendations made for Apollos 15 and 16, for example.
If they were involved in the initial RTF we probably would still not have landed on the Moon in 1969... I've said this before over the years, they are "a self licking ice-cream cone"  IMHO...

Essentially, they were. The Apollo 1 investigation board not only performed an investigation of the causes of the fire, they also reviewed the design of the Apollo capsule and the procedures used by people working on it, and then made recommendations on how both spacecraft systems and procedures should be improved. This system worked so well that Congress made it a permanent part of NASA, as the ASAP.

If you think the ASAP is a self-licking ice cream cone, then I think you don't understand what it is they do.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7725
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2043
  • Likes Given: 4743
Re: GAO Feb 2017 report on commercial crew
« Reply #48 on: 06/13/2017 11:33 PM »
If we had went with ASAP during Apollo, the Moon would perpetually be 20 years away and as for Mars... forget about it...

NASA ASAP was formed in 1968 subsequent to the investigation of the Apollo 1 fire. NASA ASAP had a great deal of influence on the later portion of the Apollo program, their safety recommendations are a part of the reason why Apollo was a success. NASA ASAP's first formal report in 1971 covers recommendations made for Apollos 15 and 16, for example.
If they were involved in the initial RTF we probably would still not have landed on the Moon in 1969... I've said this before over the years, they are "a self licking ice-cream cone"  IMHO...

Essentially, they were. The Apollo 1 investigation board not only performed an investigation of the causes of the fire, they also reviewed the design of the Apollo capsule and the procedures used by people working on it, and then made recommendations on how both spacecraft systems and procedures should be improved. This system worked so well that Congress made it a permanent part of NASA, as the ASAP.

If you think the ASAP is a self-licking ice cream cone, then I think you don't understand what it is they do.
They serve to protect the status quo...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Tags: