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: 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.
Humor a space enthusiast with no aerospace background, how would Soyuz measure up to this standard? Thanks.
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: 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.
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: 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.
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.
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.
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