Author Topic: Is Commercial Crew Dangerous?  (Read 36294 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Is Commercial Crew Dangerous?
« Reply #80 on: 08/18/2017 01:57 pm »
Habitat procurement for each project going to be years/decades apart.  Not enough to stimulate a commercial market.

The market would be to rent out the habitats not to build them. But that doesn't work if NASA makes the inside of the habitat (ECLSS, etc.) governmental as it currently intends to do it. I hope that changes.

Again, not enough market for that either.  One per 5 years or more. 

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Is Commercial Crew Dangerous?
« Reply #81 on: 08/18/2017 03:40 pm »
Habitats is a bit off topic, just sayin'
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10286
  • Liked: 698
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Is Commercial Crew Dangerous?
« Reply #82 on: 08/18/2017 04:40 pm »
What we are seeing here is that the philolosophy of the National Space Council is very much in sync with Old School thinking that space is too tough for anyone but NASA to manage.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8853
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10187
  • Likes Given: 11916
Re: Is Commercial Crew Dangerous?
« Reply #83 on: 08/19/2017 06:13 am »

It depends of course, but certainly there were many that said COTS could not work, and yet it did. So let's not be pre-bound by the past.

COTS was to help develop a system that will have gov't and commercial uses.  And then have a procurement that buys multiple "copies" of the system.   COTS is not just giving out money and letting the contractor work open loop.

No one is arguing this point, so I'm not sure why you are (well, maybe I do...). You appear to be trying to deny that a need for a public/private partnership will happen again, and all I've been saying is that you don't know that. No one does.

Of course maybe you're arguing that you don't want public/private partnerships to happen again, which if so then just state that.

Quote
It has to a system/service that will be procured maybe 7-15 times or so.

Yep. Which could happen if the U.S. Government determines that there is a need to help humanity expand out into space - for it's own selfish reasons of course, since the U.S. Taxpayer is not that magnanimous. And as of today I don't see what that reason would be, but since we're likely years away from the need to make such a commitment we're also years away from the need to decide if public/private partnerships would help.

In the meantime I don't think Commercial Crew is necessarily anymore dangerous than what our options have been recently, although everyone hopes they will be more safe. Time will tell...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Is Commercial Crew Dangerous?
« Reply #84 on: 08/24/2017 05:35 pm »
But I admit that I have the same concerns as you that they will end up following the CCtCap model for habitats and not the COTS model.

COTS is a dead model.  It was unique that it was to develop capabilities not just for the government. COTS monies were used for and paid for Falcon 9 development. Commercial use of Antares has yet to happen.

Unless a capability has potential to be used by others or have a long term NASA procurement and will have the commercial partners putting in some skin, COTS is not a viable contracting mechanism. 

Also, COTS flowed into CRS contract for services, just as CCtCap is flowing into CCP services.

For habitats, COTS type procurement is a no go.
A.  COTS tested spacecraft and launch vehicles over 2-3 flights.  Is that going to happen with a habitat?
B.  The follow on to COTS was CRS.  How would COTS development of habitats flow into a procurement "habitat" services.   This is not the same as a commercial space station where NASA could by time on one or rent one.  It doesn't work when a habitat is going to be part of a station that is still managed by NASA.

Service contracts are great and NASA should be using more of them.  COTS contracts have limited applicability and there are few places that they fit in.

Of course there are going to be systems that NASA will need that are unique, and are not applicable for commercial applications.  No body denies that, but the problem is that these cases are often overstated.

The shuttle was a prime example of this case.  We spent decades spending 5+ billions of dollars a year operating a custom launch system to put people and cargo in LEO when the Russians just used man-rated variants of the launch systems they sold commercially.  Not only did they spend far less, but they had a much more safe and reliable system.  It's no wonder that the Chinese opted copy them in their space program.

I cannot see any reason why the COTS model cannot be used for all cargo deliveries to NASA outposts from here on out.  I do not see why SLS even needs to be man-rated.   I think the need for SLS is quite questionable in the first place.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Is Commercial Crew Dangerous?
« Reply #85 on: 08/24/2017 05:45 pm »
but they had a much more safe and reliable system. 

No, not true.  they had the same number of fatal accidents.  Shuttle had more fatalities because it carried more passengers.

\
I cannot see any reason why the COTS model cannot be used for all cargo deliveries to NASA outposts from here on out.

Not happening for a decade at least.
« Last Edit: 08/24/2017 05:57 pm by Jim »

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Is Commercial Crew Dangerous?
« Reply #86 on: 08/24/2017 06:06 pm »
but they had a much more safe and reliable system. 

No, not true.  they had the same number of fatal accidents.
Sure if you go back far enough, but they have not had an fatal accident since 1971.  It has flown 100s of times since then.  Many more times than the Shuttle.  There is a good reason why the US decided to rely on the Soyuz as the only means of manned transport to the ISS without any backup.  It pretty much is the epitome of launch reliability. 

\
I cannot see any reason why the COTS model cannot be used for all cargo deliveries to NASA outposts from here on out.

Not happening for a decade at least.
Well I am not confident that NASA will have another outpost for at least another decade.  For the mean time COTS style contracts will provide transport to and from the ISS for people and cargo. 

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Is Commercial Crew Dangerous?
« Reply #87 on: 08/24/2017 06:08 pm »

Sure if you go back far enough, but they have not had an fatal accident since 1971.  It has flown 100s of times since then.  Many more times than the Shuttle. 


Same number of spacecraft flights.

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Is Commercial Crew Dangerous?
« Reply #88 on: 08/30/2017 06:23 pm »
Sure if you go back far enough, but they have not had an fatal accident since 1971.  It has flown 100s of times since then.  Many more times than the Shuttle.  There is a good reason why the US decided to rely on the Soyuz as the only means of manned transport to the ISS without any backup.  It pretty much is the epitome of launch reliability. 

Let's not forget though that there would be no ISS (at least in its current form) without Shuttle. It certainly had unique capabilities that the Russian system did not.
« Last Edit: 08/30/2017 06:24 pm by spacetraveler »

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5180
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Is Commercial Crew Dangerous?
« Reply #89 on: 08/30/2017 06:32 pm »
Titan IV then and currently Atlas V and Delta IV Heavy could have carried up the components to build ISS probably cheaper than Shuttle.  Also if they had kept Saturn V in production and even larger station could have been launched, and Saturn IB could have ferried the astronauts via Apollo.  Yes Shuttle had a mechanical arm.  However a module with a mechanical arm could have been launched and Apollo could have docked to and assembled the ISS, like a manned space tug.  Saturn technology could have evolved into reusable rockets also. 

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12092
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18181
  • Likes Given: 12139
Re: Is Commercial Crew Dangerous?
« Reply #90 on: 08/30/2017 07:40 pm »
Sure if you go back far enough, but they have not had an fatal accident since 1971.  It has flown 100s of times since then.  Many more times than the Shuttle.  There is a good reason why the US decided to rely on the Soyuz as the only means of manned transport to the ISS without any backup.  It pretty much is the epitome of launch reliability. 

Let's not forget though that there would be no ISS (at least in its current form) without Shuttle. It certainly had unique capabilities that the Russian system did not.
If Shuttle had not been there, and the USA still had been serious about a big space station, then the USA would have found another way to construct one. Jim once pointed out that "the shuttle-way" of building the ISS was in fact inefficient.
The Soviet-developed system, where new components of an orbital complex automatically performed rendez-vous and docking to the growing station, was in fact more advanced than what was used to construct the USOS part of the station.

But, we are steering off-topic here. So, let's get back to the subject of Commercial Crew supposedly being dangerous.
« Last Edit: 08/30/2017 07:41 pm by woods170 »

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5180
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Is Commercial Crew Dangerous?
« Reply #91 on: 08/30/2017 07:45 pm »
Commercial crew has no reason to not be as safe as they can make it.  They will not get contracts or have a business case if they were not safe.  So, no, they are not anymore dangerous than shuttle was.  It still has yet to be seen, however, SpaceX has shown they can launch and land a capsule.  Boeing has previous experience and Atlas V is a reliable rocket.  No reason for either to not be safe.  Yes, SpaceX had one failure, but it was not with a Dragon II which has the Dracos for emergency escape. 

Re: Is Commercial Crew Dangerous?
« Reply #92 on: 08/30/2017 07:48 pm »
The quick answer is Commercial Crew Dangerous? Yes
Spaceflight in general is dangerous. It doesn't matter if it's commercial or government. Space is hard.... period. I don't see a time when it won't be. We just have to find a balance between being too risk adverse and being too gung ho. Commercial Crew is happening and quite frankly, it's about time.

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: Is Commercial Crew Dangerous?
« Reply #93 on: 09/01/2017 05:55 pm »
Commercial crew has no reason to not be as safe as they can make it.  They will not get contracts or have a business case if they were not safe.

I would caution you very strongly on these statements.  Spaceflight is still very dangerous.  It's safer than it used to be, but we should not fool ourselves into thinking it's "safe" according to a typical understanding of that word.

The safest spacecraft is the one that never flies.  Everything else is a trade.

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1700
  • Likes Given: 6867
Re: Is Commercial Crew Dangerous?
« Reply #94 on: 09/05/2017 12:48 pm »
Safe-free from harm or risk

Certainly doesn't apply to spaceflight.  Heck there are risks of being in spacecraft on the ground.

Ah, the lessons of Apollo-1.
Paul

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8853
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10187
  • Likes Given: 11916
Re: Is Commercial Crew Dangerous?
« Reply #95 on: 09/09/2017 10:30 pm »
Commercial crew has no reason to not be as safe as they can make it.  They will not get contracts or have a business case if they were not safe.

I would caution you very strongly on these statements.  Spaceflight is still very dangerous.  It's safer than it used to be, but we should not fool ourselves into thinking it's "safe" according to a typical understanding of that word.

I think spacenut was just pointing out the obvious - that if potential customers perceive a provider is not being as safe as they can, then they won't be a preferred option. Not that Commercial Crew providers will wait until they have eliminated all potential risk.

It's all about market perception, but that perception is based on what customers perceive, not what providers what to project.

Quote
The safest spacecraft is the one that never flies.

If it doesn't fly, then it's not a spacecraft - it's an expensive and overbuilt simulator. Just wanted to point that out...  ;)

Quote
Everything else is a trade.

And we humans are good at making trade offs when danger is present - and when I say "good" I mean that humanity as a whole seems biased towards discovery, which means we should have plenty of people to rely upon for wanting to try out space travel in one way or another.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Is Commercial Crew Dangerous?
« Reply #96 on: 09/10/2017 09:07 pm »
I think spacenut was just pointing out the obvious - that if potential customers perceive a provider is not being as safe as they can, then they won't be a preferred option.

Huh? Surely there's concerns other than "safety". Ya know, like price and availability?

Quote from: Coastal Ron
Not that Commercial Crew providers will wait until they have eliminated all potential risk.

Then what the hell are they waiting for?

Quote from: Coastal Ron
It's all about market perception, but that perception is based on what customers perceive, not what providers what to project.

What customers? I really doubt the commercial customers who have contracted SpaceX to fly them around the Moon have "living a safe life" as their top priority. I really doubt they chose SpaceX over the Russians on the grounds of safety. There's much more important considerations - like actually being able to make a deal and stick to it with legal recourse if the provider keeps changing things and threatening to take someone else instead of you - a behaviour for which the Russians are renowned. Not to mention the cabbage for every meal during training.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8853
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10187
  • Likes Given: 11916
Re: Is Commercial Crew Dangerous?
« Reply #97 on: 09/11/2017 08:48 pm »
I think spacenut was just pointing out the obvious - that if potential customers perceive a provider is not being as safe as they can, then they won't be a preferred option.

Huh? Surely there's concerns other than "safety". Ya know, like price and availability?

The topic is related to safety though, so I ignored those other (valid) factors.

Quote
Quote from: Coastal Ron
Not that Commercial Crew providers will wait until they have eliminated all potential risk.

Then what the hell are they waiting for?

Some things take time. Like the 787, which seemed to take an inordinate amount of time before it became operational, and now they are commonplace.

Quote
Quote from: Coastal Ron
It's all about market perception, but that perception is based on what customers perceive, not what providers what to project.

What customers?

Well there is only one for today, so we're all projecting into the future here. And we're all hoping that Commercial Crew actually provides enough value that it inspires companies and individuals to buy rides separately from what the ISS requires. So no doubt about it, we are all hoping that there is an emerging market soon to come.

Quote
I really doubt the commercial customers who have contracted SpaceX to fly them around the Moon have "living a safe life" as their top priority.

I actually think it was one of their top priorities. There are less expensive ways to die here on Earth.

Quote
I really doubt they chose SpaceX over the Russians on the grounds of safety.

No? Do you have confidence in the quality of Russia's space sector as of today?

But beyond that, the Russians may say they have the capability to send humans around the Moon, I think it's pretty obvious that they are struggling to do routine space stuff today, so doing extra-ordinary things in space would be a stretch. And though SpaceX may not have experience in sending humans around the Moon (which the Russians don't either), Elon Musk tends to be more open about what they can or can't do than what Russians would be. Musk agreed to send humans around the Moon because it coincides with his future space plans, whereas Russians would just be doing it for the money you give them - up front.

Quote
There's much more important considerations - like actually being able to make a deal and stick to it with legal recourse if the provider keeps changing things and threatening to take someone else instead of you - a behaviour for which the Russians are renowned. Not to mention the cabbage for every meal during training.

Valid points all, but I don't think that was as big of a factor. YMMV of course.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Is Commercial Crew Dangerous?
« Reply #98 on: 09/11/2017 09:37 pm »
Valid points all, but I don't think that was as big of a factor. YMMV of course.

It is... the Russians are in the business of milking 10 customers of their money for 1 that actually gets to fly. There's this little game they play where they deny their customers are even customers and then play them off against each other. One would hope SpaceX won't be doing anything like that and maybe the Russians will give it up when they have some competition. Either way, the only reason why commercial crew is not flying right now is that NASA is their customer and to make that customer happy there has to be lots of assurances about safety.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Doesitfloat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
  • Detroit MI
  • Liked: 499
  • Likes Given: 197
Re: Is Commercial Crew Dangerous?
« Reply #99 on: 09/12/2017 06:56 pm »
If we can make it so where then most dangerous thing a passenger on a spacecraft does, ( on the day of space launch) is get in their car and drive to the launch site. 
That's good enough.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1