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.
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“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.
“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.”
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: 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.
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: 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.
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: 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.