Astronaut Safety And Buying American

[QuantumG]

As we all know astronaut safety is the "number one priority", and so NASA will continue to buy seats on the Soyuz until US providers are certified to have "more safety" than that vehicle. NASA astronauts will continue to be sent to Russia for training, separating them from their friends, family and community. Congress will continue to be called upon to issue INSKNA waiver extensions, and pay ~$400M/year to a foreign space industry instead of a domestic one.

At what point are you valuing astronaut safety too highly?

If accelerating commercial crew services from the currently expected 2017, which is unlikely with current funding, to next year compromises safety compared to Soyuz, so what? Isn't it better for America to buy American? Why not compare safety to Shuttle, which had no launch escape system? Unlike Shuttle, a launch escape system can be added to the commercial crew providers over the next few years. In the mean time, there's priorities other than astronaut safety.

[Jason1701]

As we all know astronaut safety is the "number one priority", and so NASA will continue to buy seats on the Soyuz until US providers are certified to have "more safety" than that vehicle. NASA astronauts will continue to be sent to Russia for training, separating them from their friends, family and community. Congress will continue to be called upon to issue INSKNA waiver extensions, and pay ~$400M/year to a foreign space industry instead of a domestic one.

At what point are you valuing astronaut safety too highly?

If accelerating commercial crew services from the currently expected 2017, which is unlikely with current funding, to next year compromises safety compared to Soyuz, so what? Isn't it better for America to buy American? Why not compare safety to Shuttle, which had no launch escape system? Unlike Shuttle, a launch escape system can be added to the commercial crew providers over the next few years. In the mean time, there's priorities other than astronaut safety.

I think that NASA values astronauts too highly as is, and that the safety factors proposed for Constellation were excuses to pay more to contractors. Astronauts are heroes, and just like those who serve in the military, they know that they have a dangerous mission that may claim their lives.

I would fly on Dragon now.

[Jorge]

As we all know astronaut safety is the "number one priority", and so NASA will continue to buy seats on the Soyuz until US providers are certified to have "more safety" than that vehicle. NASA astronauts will continue to be sent to Russia for training, separating them from their friends, family and community. Congress will continue to be called upon to issue INSKNA waiver extensions, and pay ~$400M/year to a foreign space industry instead of a domestic one.

At what point are you valuing astronaut safety too highly?

If accelerating commercial crew services from the currently expected 2017, which is unlikely with current funding, to next year compromises safety compared to Soyuz, so what? Isn't it better for America to buy American? Why not compare safety to Shuttle, which had no launch escape system?

Shuttle had the same overall safety record as Soyuz, so that comparison will make no difference.

[Jim]

I would fly on Dragon now.

That is just plain silly and really shows your fanbioism.  You have no insight into it and the Falcon 9 and therefore your statement is not rational.   The public does not fly on airplanes after 1.5 flights.

[Jason1701]

I would fly on Dragon now.

That is just plain silly and really shows your fanbioism.  You have no insight into it and the Falcon 9 and therefore your statement is not rational.   The public does not fly on airplanes after 1.5 flights.

Airplanes and the public are irrelevant. Astronauts have flown on spacecraft with 0 flights. I suspect a significant part of the space community would take any chance to fly to space.

[QuantumG]

Airplanes and the public are irrelevant. Astronauts have flown on spacecraft with 0 flights. I suspect a significant part of the space community would take any chance to fly to space.

Indeed. The line forms to the left, if you're not in it, you shouldn't be in the astronaut core.

[Jim]

I would fly on Dragon now.

That is just plain silly and really shows your fanbioism.  You have no insight into it and the Falcon 9 and therefore your statement is not rational.   The public does not fly on airplanes after 1.5 flights.

Airplanes and the public are irrelevant. Astronauts have flown on spacecraft with 0 flights. I suspect a significant part of the space community would take any chance to fly to space.

You aren't an astronaut, nor an informed participant, just a ........

[JohnFornaro]

Astronauts have flown on spacecraft with 0 flights.

We cannot do that any more.  At least, SLS is scheduled to fly manned on the second flight.

[Rocket Science]

Astronaut safety has to be viewed within the context of the times. During the first flights of Mercury was in the context of the Cold War so the astronauts were viewed as war fighters. Risk to them would have been the equivalent to a combat flight over Korea or later Vietnam…

Today’s war fighters have evolved into the use of UAV’s which minimize the risk exposure to those in combat operations thanks to advances in technology… Losing a drone does not have the same effect on public opinion as losing an aircraft and a pilot being captured…

Advances in robotic spacecraft reduce the need to have an astronaut in the loop for all phases of spaceflight…

Western society has a low risk tolerance when it comes to safety…


Edit to add: Can you imagine to political fallout if heaven forbid, a LOV/LOC occurs while flying on Soyuz…

[Jason1701]

I would fly on Dragon now.

That is just plain silly and really shows your fanbioism.  You have no insight into it and the Falcon 9 and therefore your statement is not rational.   The public does not fly on airplanes after 1.5 flights.

Airplanes and the public are irrelevant. Astronauts have flown on spacecraft with 0 flights. I suspect a significant part of the space community would take any chance to fly to space.

You aren't an astronaut, nor an informed participant, just a ........

How would you respond to the thread's original question? I would like to hear what you actually think about issues, rather than your problems with specific parts of posts.

[Jim]

Commercial crew services should be NASA's HSF highest priority.

[wolfpack]

I would fly on Dragon now.

I wouldn't. It just doesn't make sense to stuff bodies into a spacecraft and LV that are capable of unmanned flight testing. Do more flight testing!

Let's see at least 3 flights of DragonRider atop F9 v1.1 before we start lining up for tickets. I am a proponent of Commercial Crew, but I believe it will take only ONE LOCV accident to derail the program completely.

[QuantumG]

Commercial crew services should be NASA's HSF highest priority.

Wow, almost sounds like Jim is agreeing with me. (checks for brimstone outside).

Do you think 2017-but-only-with-more-funding is representative of it currently being a high priority?

[wolfpack]

Wow, almost sounds like Jim is agreeing with me. (checks for brimstone outside).

Ah, but where should HSF be in NASA's priorities?

[Wayne Hale]

With all due respect to SpaceX; I think I would wait to fly on Dragon until at least they have installed a life support system . . .

[yg1968]

With all due respect to SpaceX; I think I would wait to fly on Dragon until at least they have installed a life support system . . .

A LAS might be optional but life support is kind of important...

Just out of curiosity, how difficult and expensive would it be to add only life support to Dragon?

[QuantumG]

With all due respect to SpaceX; I think I would wait to fly on Dragon until at least they have installed a life support system . . .

So the question becomes: why does the first nine CCDev2 milestones focus on the LAS instead of the life support system?

The answer is: there's no urgency to get crews onto a US-made vehicle again.

[apace]

With all due respect to SpaceX; I think I would wait to fly on Dragon until at least they have installed a life support system . . .

So the question becomes: why does the first nine CCDev2 milestones focus on the LAS instead of the life support system?

The answer is: there's no urgency to get crews onto a US-made vehicle again.

Wrong! Because you can buy life support systems
On the market. No need for own developments.

[QuantumG]

Wrong! Because you can buy life support systems
On the market. No need for own developments.

Uh huh. You still have to integrate it.. making that one of the first milestones is what you'd do if you wanted people in the vehicle ASAP.

[apace]

Wrong! Because you can buy life support systems
On the market. No need for own developments.

Uh huh. You still have to integrate it.. making that one of the first milestones is what you'd do if you wanted people in the vehicle ASAP.

Question of engineering philosophy.

[QuantumG]

Question of engineering philosophy.

It's a question of confidence.

[apace]

Question of engineering philosophy.

It's a question of confidence.

Don't agree with you.

[vulture4]

Soyuz has a lot of operational experience but two fatal incidents years ago and several close calls recently. Dragon will have at least ten flights before carrying a crew, enough to ensure the design is free of major problems.

[Go4TLI]

Soyuz has a lot of operational experience but two fatal incidents years ago and several close calls recently. Dragon will have at least ten flights before carrying a crew, enough to ensure the design is free of major problems.

Does Dragon have a life support system?
Does Dragon have seats and crew-in-the-loop systems?
Is the software going to be the same?

[Lee Jay]

With all due respect to SpaceX; I think I would wait to fly on Dragon until at least they have installed a life support system . . .

 

I think some seats and maybe even some controls might be nice too.  A radio - yes, I believe I'd like some comms as well.

[QuantumG]

I think some seats and maybe even some controls might be nice too.  A radio - yes, I believe I'd like some comms as well.

Already completed milestones of CCDev2..

[asmi]

Hmm... Deleting LAS... That rings some bells - it's that the very reason why Shuttle killed more people than ALL other space vehicles COMBINED??

Don't make this mistake again. Soyuz made god knows how many flights with LAS that wasn't used, but it saved the crew one - BTW part of that crew (Gennadi Strekalov) was later in flight with T. Thagard, the first american aboard Souyz. I think that one case justified all the expences of having it on each and every flight.\

And to those fanboys who are ready to fly on Dragon - please ask your family what to they think about going for a almost certain death...

[Jorge]

Hmm... Deleting LAS... That rings some bells - it's that the very reason why Shuttle killed more people than ALL other space vehicles COMBINED??

OK, let's not have full-on-boogie all-caps hysteria on these forums.

The facts (as have been rehashed many times on these forums) is that Soyuz and Shuttle had roughly the same fatality rate. Shuttle killed more people because it carried more people. Same 1-in-60 fatality rate on both vehicles. LAS wouldn't have saved the Columbia crew.

Remain calm and carry on.

[asmi]

The facts (as have been rehashed many times on these forums) is that Soyuz and Shuttle had roughly the same fatality rate. Shuttle killed more people because it carried more people. Same 1-in-60 fatality rate on both vehicles. LAS wouldn't have saved the Columbia crew.

Remain calm and carry on.

No, it does not - timing do matter. All of Soyuz's fatalities happened at the beginning of the program - at time when very little was known about the spaceflight, and they are followed by 40+ years of operation without single accident (and yes, ballistic descents do not count as failure, if you believe otherwise think about if Challenger's crew would prefer to experience 10+g loads, but stay alive), while with the Shuttle NASA's bureacrats chose to ignore existing issues, which lead to Columbia.

Now we (as humanity) know that being reckless with space tech leads to trouble, so I'd suggest not to repeat mistakes of the past. Even Soviets have actually developed and flight-tested ejecting seats for their Buran programme...

[Jorge]

The facts (as have been rehashed many times on these forums) is that Soyuz and Shuttle had roughly the same fatality rate. Shuttle killed more people because it carried more people. Same 1-in-60 fatality rate on both vehicles. LAS wouldn't have saved the Columbia crew.

Remain calm and carry on.

No, it does not - timing do matter. All of Soyuz's fatalities happened at the beginning of the program - at time when very little was known about the spaceflight, and they are followed by 40+ years of operation without single accident

No, number of years does not matter as much as number of flights. Otherwise we'd be calling the Spruce Goose the safest aircraft in history. Soyuz has had barely more flights since its last accident than the shuttle did between its two.

[asmi]

No, number of years does not matter as much as number of flights. Otherwise we'd be calling the Spruce Goose the safest aircraft in history. Soyuz has had barely more flights since its last accident than the shuttle did between its two.

It does matter, just as the fact that Soyuz has redundancy 100% of flight time - from the pad all the way bak to the ground, but I don't have time nor wish to argue with shuttle fan - and I can tell you that you are because you didn't even bother to read my whole message and try to understand what I was actually going to say...

[QuantumG]

Hmm... Deleting LAS... That rings some bells - it's that the very reason why Shuttle killed more people than ALL other space vehicles COMBINED??

Don't make this mistake again.

So what you're saying is that the astronauts are not actually doing anything important enough to risk their lives. They need to be wrapped in cotton wool and given a lolly pop because they're national treasure.

[FinalFrontier]

Hmm... Deleting LAS... That rings some bells - it's that the very reason why Shuttle killed more people than ALL other space vehicles COMBINED??

Don't make this mistake again.

So what you're saying is that the astronauts are not actually doing anything important enough to risk their lives. They need to be wrapped in cotton wool and given a lolly pop because they're national treasure.

By the same token but the other edge of the double-bladed sword, how can you make space commercial without LAS systems?

Maybe for NASA, as its a government program, it might be justifiable to delete the LAS, but this will not hold up in the private sector crew market. Ever.


You need a LAS. And the LAS, by far, will not always save you. But it does increase your chances. If commercial is doing it NASA should do it too, in fact it was NASA that set the example in this case long before the private sector became interested. 


Sort of silly to suggest flying another vehicle without some sort of abort system.

By the same token, things like what ASAP has been saying for the past 5 years are pure FUD, and that sort of ultra risk-averse behavior as a means of trying to slow down or kill commercial crew should be stopped.

I am getting tired with all the bureaucratic nonsense being thrown around to try and slow down these vehicles, this decision to down-select to "2.5" providers is the latest development to come along and I am fed up with all of it. Get flying again already and quit worrying about whether its NASA or a private contractor flying NASA astronauts, the sooner we get back the better because right now we have nothing.

Safety has been addressed, enough already.

[QuantumG]

By the same token but the other edge of the double-bladed sword, how can you make space commercial without LAS systems?
[..]
Sort of silly to suggest flying another vehicle without some sort of abort system.

Uhh.. thousands of people fly in commercial vehicles every day without an abort system.

[FinalFrontier]

By the same token but the other edge of the double-bladed sword, how can you make space commercial without LAS systems?
[..]
Sort of silly to suggest flying another vehicle without some sort of abort system.

Uhh.. thousands of people fly in commercial vehicles every day without an abort system.

Perception is everything, spaceflight is unique in this regard. Someone dies in a plane crash people watch the news and forget about it the next day. Someone dies on say, the maiden voyage of spaceship two, not so easily forgotten.

That can change in the future, but in order for that to happen we have to make it as routine as air transportation and at this rate we are 65-70 years from that happening as governments are either showing no interest to help the developing private sector, are getting in the way of it, or are in addition, not showing any interest in going anywhere themselves. Unless you count China but their massive costs will come back to bite them.

I am not saying that these vehicles should have their LAS systems deleted, but I am saying that the CCDev2 milestones regarding the LAS systems, as well as other "regulations in the name of safety" that have been thrown around are far too restrictive and un-necessary. LAS is not that complicated a system to build.

Also I added more to my previous post.

On the plus side Atlas V has just about completed its human rating requirements, so that's some progress finally.

[asmi]

So what you're saying is that the astronauts are not actually doing anything important enough to risk their lives. They need to be wrapped in cotton wool and given a lolly pop because they're national treasure.

No, what I'm saying is that spaceflight is risky enough even with LAS. LAS is not that expensive nor complicated yet it gives crew a chance when everything else fails - their last chance. I've brought up Soyuz here to demonstrate that it actually saves lifes, and gives everybody involved another level of confidence. Just imagine what kind of reaction would be if Russians will announce tomorrow that from that point on they are not going to have LAS - everybody will freak out and protest, yet that it exactly kind of thing is being proposed here. Even worse - in case of Soyuz there is a least a system with very extensive flight experience and safety record, while F9/Dragon can hardly be named as such...

[QuantumG]

No, what I'm saying is that spaceflight is risky enough even with LAS. LAS is not that expensive nor complicated yet it gives crew a chance when everything else fails - their last chance.

But it's not free.. Go back to post 1 in this thread and read it. There's a cost/benefit analysis required here that isn't being done.

I've brought up Soyuz here to demonstrate that it actually saves lifes, and gives everybody involved another level of confidence. Just imagine what kind of reaction would be if Russians will announce tomorrow that from that point on they are not going to have LAS - everybody will freak out and protest, yet that it exactly kind of thing is being proposed here.

And those protests would be taken seriously and astronauts would no longer fly? So they'd decrew the ISS and possibly let it fall out of the sky due to lack of maintenance? Isn't the ISS important? Isn't it worth a little more risk to human life to keep it?

Even worse - in case of Soyuz there is a least a system with very extensive flight experience and safety record, while F9/Dragon can hardly be named that...

Great.. but it comes with a cost. Is that price worth the benefits? Cant you use the same argument to justify the continued use of the Soyuz after any of the commercial crew providers become operational? Can they ever really overtake Soyuz's safety record? If safety is all NASA cared about, they'd fly on Soyuz forever.

[asmi]

But it's not free.. Go back to post 1 in this thread and read it. There's a cost/benefit analysis required here that isn't being done.

No, it's not free. But LOC is also not free - not just will it halt further flights, but it will spur a huge outrage in the political circles - and remember that NASA is driven by politicians. It's bad enough on its own - but that's off-topic here.

And those protests would be taken seriously and astronauts would no longer fly? So they'd decrew the ISS and possibly let it fall out of the sky due to lack of maintenance? Isn't the ISS important? Isn't it worth a little more risk to human life to keep it?

Yes they would, and I'm 100% sure that NASA would find a way to force Russians to bring it back.

Great.. but it comes with a cost. Is that price worth the benefits? Cant you use the same argument to justify the continued use of the Soyuz after any of the commercial crew providers become operational? Can they ever really overtake Soyuz's safety record? If safety is all NASA cared about, they'd fly on Soyuz forever.

And they probably would - but the politicians won't let them. But that's again - a topic for another discussion.
The problem is - if NASA would launch a crew without LAS and get LOCV - whoever authorized such a decision would likely be fired (if not worse), and there will be a lot of politicians/media/independent experts accusing NASA of being reckless - and frankly rightly so. This has a potential to kill CCDev alltogether, which would "cost" much more that LAS...

I think that CCDev is a great way to make spaceflight more affordable - because as an engineer I know that bureacracy never leads to creating anything, but waaay to often to destruction. And government is an ultimate bureacrat, and so NASA is too...

So - while I do agree that NASA's "certification" is much more about wasting tons of paper for stupid and useless reports than about actual safety, LAS requirement is one of the very few in this maddness that actually makes sence and have a potential to save crew's life.

And as for Atlas V human rating certification - that blows my mind - how the hell can you declare anything safe without even single flight test???

[QuantumG]

I think I see the problem here.. you're talking about what NASA can do when weaselly politicians don't see any value in what they do in space, and risking human life to do it. I'm talking about why politicians should see value in what NASA does in space. You think I'm criticizing NASA. I'm not, I'm criticizing the politicians.

[asmi]

I think I see the problem here.. you're talking about what NASA can do when weaselly politicians don't see any value in what they do in space, and risking human life to do it. I'm talking about why politicians should see value in what NASA does in space. You think I'm criticizing NASA. I'm not, I'm criticizing the politicians.

Well, I'm criticizing NASA, but I do realize that they are likely not in a position to change anything because it's the politicians who run the show here and firmly hold NASA's throat. Politicians are very special people that only care about their ratings - and nothing else. I think the problem here is that there is no concensus in the general public about what NASA should do (and if it should do anything at all for that matter) - and so politicians are not willing to risk their ratings by telling NASA to do one thing or another. At times it seems to me that this whole space exploration thing in US has turned into nothing more than a jobs program. Because we all see that something is constantly going on in NASA, but there is no results. Maybe that's because they don't really want results - because then politicians risk to face questions from their constituents regarding why did they spend $XXB but got so little (or even worse - LOC/V)?

[spectre9]

I think the OP has a good point here.

Shuttle was cancelled because it was unfairly deemed as dangerous not because Soyuz is so much cheaper.

Shipping all that money overseas and not investing in your own aerospace industry has consequences. So what if it was a jobs program, it was one that was getting US astronauts to orbit and there's no replacement in sight because nobody wants to fund one on a realistic time scale.

The total cost of shuttle retirement in my opinion looks too high without Commercial crew in 2014.

[Jim]

No, number of years does not matter as much as number of flights. Otherwise we'd be calling the Spruce Goose the safest aircraft in history. Soyuz has had barely more flights since its last accident than the shuttle did between its two.

It does matter, just as the fact that Soyuz has redundancy 100% of flight time - from the pad all the way bak to the ground, but I don't have time nor wish to argue with shuttle fan - and I can tell you that you are because you didn't even bother to read my whole message and try to understand what I was actually going to say...

No, he is not a shuttle fan, he was just stating the facts and you are wrong. 

[edkyle99]

Uhh.. thousands of people fly in commercial vehicles every day without an abort system.

That's because those commercial vehicles don't crash once every 50 flights.

I'm not quite sure what this thread is about.  NASA is planning on "buying American" and flying safely.

 - Ed Kyle

[aquanaut99]

I'm not quite sure what this thread is about.  NASA is planning on "buying American" and flying safely.

 - Ed Kyle

Planning being the operating word here...

[asmi]

No, he is not a shuttle fan, he was just stating the facts and you are wrong. 

...and another person... Why don't you read first what I actually said?
We very likely wouldn't have Challenger's disaster if the Shuttle had LAS - or you gonna argue that that's wrong too?

[Jim]

No, he is not a shuttle fan, he was just stating the facts and you are wrong. 

...and another person... Why don't you read first what I actually said?
We very likely wouldn't have Challenger's disaster if the Shuttle had LAS - or you gonna argue that that's wrong too?

No need to argue with a fact, it is wrong.   

[Rocket Science]

You can’t unwind the clock of 50 plus years of U.S. spaceflight history and lessons learned.  Any procurement of launch services will have to safer that Shuttle period… Flying on Soyuz, which doesn’t meet current NASA safety requirements, has the America being put in a box by their own doing, due to mismanagement and screw-ups on a space policy side… They need to get out of “this box” ASAP for multiple reasons of national security, autonomy and prestige. …

[Go4TLI]

You can’t unwind the clock of 50 plus years of U.S. spaceflight history and lessons learned.  Any procurement of launch services will have to safer that Shuttle period… Flying on Soyuz, which doesn’t meet current NASA safety requirements, has the America being put in a box by their own doing, due to mismanagement and screw-ups on a space policy side… They need to get out of “this box” ASAP for multiple reasons of national security, autonomy and prestige. …

This thread is nonsensical as the majority of those who have posted in it are not qualified to speak on safety of any particular vehicle, that much is evident. 

For example, in the post above the individual contradicts their own statement by saying absolutely any "procurement of launch services will have to be safer than Shuttle period" but then goes on to suggest that America is being "put in a box by their own doing".

The Shuttle was relatively safe and vehicle safety extends far beyond just the launch phase.  As Jorge pointed out, it has an equivalent record to Soyuz and Shuttle carried more, in terms of crew and definitely cargo, and certainly had vastly superior capability. 

[Rocket Science]

You can’t unwind the clock of 50 plus years of U.S. spaceflight history and lessons learned.  Any procurement of launch services will have to safer that Shuttle period… Flying on Soyuz, which doesn’t meet current NASA safety requirements, has the America being put in a box by their own doing, due to mismanagement and screw-ups on a space policy side… They need to get out of “this box” ASAP for multiple reasons of national security, autonomy and prestige. …

This thread is nonsensical as the majority of those who have posted in it are not qualified to speak on safety of any particular vehicle, that much is evident. 

For example, in the post above the individual contradicts their own statement by saying absolutely any "procurement of launch services will have to be safer than Shuttle period" but then goes on to suggest that America is being "put in a box by their own doing".

The Shuttle was relatively safe and vehicle safety extends far beyond just the launch phase.  As Jorge pointed out, it has an equivalent record to Soyuz and Shuttle carried more, in terms of crew and definitely cargo, and certainly had vastly superior capability. 

Perhaps I could have stated it better. My statement should be not construed to denigrate the marvelous vehicle that the Shuttle was and the legacy that it has left behind orbiting overhead to which one only
has to look up at the correct place and time.

Next, if you select to quote me, you should quote the complete sentence so that the statement stands in the correct context….
 
My point is that the next vehicle by evolution would be safer than the last one on what have we learned, be it Mercury, Gemini or Apollo, “BTW Happy Anniversary Apollo 11”. 

So friend I won’t take the slight personally for I applied to the Shuttle Astronaut Program 10 years ago and was willing to ride it just fine…

[edkyle99]

I'm not quite sure what this thread is about.  NASA is planning on "buying American" and flying safely.

 - Ed Kyle

Planning being the operating word here...

It's a lot more than just planning.  The Agency has two crewed spacecraft programs underway, one for deep space and one for LEO.  One precursor spacecraft has flown.  Another well-flown rocket has been approved for human launch.  Very soon, in just a few days, NASA's intentions for the path to LEO crew will become more focused. 

Hardware is being assembled, tests are being performed (on engines, recovery systems, and structures), systems are being certified, monies are being spent.  The U.S. is currently doing more work on crewed launch system development than any other country. 

 - Ed Kyle

[FinalFrontier]

No, he is not a shuttle fan, he was just stating the facts and you are wrong. 

...and another person... Why don't you read first what I actually said?
We very likely wouldn't have Challenger's disaster if the Shuttle had LAS - or you gonna argue that that's wrong too?

LAS would not have saved challenger.

[aquanaut99]

I'm not quite sure what this thread is about.  NASA is planning on "buying American" and flying safely.

 - Ed Kyle

Planning being the operating word here...

It's a lot more than just planning.  The Agency has two crewed spacecraft programs underway, one for deep space and one for LEO.  One precursor spacecraft has flown.  Another well-flown rocket has been approved for human launch.  Very soon, in just a few days, NASA's intentions for the path to LEO crew will become more focused. 

Hardware is being assembled, tests are being performed (on engines, recovery systems, and structures), systems are being certified, monies are being spent.  The U.S. is currently doing more work on crewed launch system development than any other country. 

 - Ed Kyle

Yes, sure. And when the politicians pull the funding, those systems will go the same way as so many other systems in development at NASA have gone over the past 30 years.   

[edkyle99]

Yes, sure. And when the politicians pull the funding, those systems will go the same way as so many other systems in development at NASA have gone over the past 30 years.   

Such a pessimist!  What about all of the systems that NASA did develop during the last 30 years, like ISS, and Hubble, and the Mars rovers, and on and on.  Crew didn't happen because NASA already had Shuttle.  It was supposed to keep Shuttle until 2020, but Columbia short circuited those plans, throwing the U.S. into its current predicament.

I think it is time to forget the past.  This is going to happen.  It has to happen.  Heck, it already is happening.

 - Ed Kyle

[asmi]

It specifically says spaceflight in the title, not "this will never work.com" or "its pointless.com".

Small hint - this website is about spaceflight, not about NASA. And I mostly agree with him - there is a lot going on, but zero results.

[FinalFrontier]

It specifically says spaceflight in the title, not "this will never work.com" or "its pointless.com".

Small hint - this website is about spaceflight, not about NASA. And I mostly agree with him - there is a lot going on, but zero results.

Saying there are no results is one thing, although its totally untrue.


Saying there will never be any results and we should just give up is completely different. And while it may say "NASA" in the title this site covers all forms of spaceflight commercial included.



The problem I have is with people who would rather just stay on the ground and not even try. Don't go on a spaceflight website if that's how you feel.

[Chris Bergin]

Going to give this one a final chance of an interesting and civil debate or I'm going to lock it.

[QuantumG]

Going to give this one a final chance of an interesting and civil debate or I'm going to lock it.

Okay. A different tact: if Russia was to refuse NASA access to the Soyuz tomorrow, whatever the reason, what changes would Congress require NASA to make to their current plans for procuring a new crew transportation system?

All opinions welcome. If there's anyone who thinks nothing would change, speak up too.

Thanks.

[asmi]

Okay. A different tact: if Russia was to refuse NASA access to the Soyuz tomorrow, whatever the reason, what changes would Congress require NASA to make to their current plans for procuring a new crew transportation system?

All opinions welcome. If there's anyone who thinks nothing would change, speak up too.

Thanks.

I think there is no way it's gonna happen. The Russians are not stupid enough to destroy the cash cow. And also letting NASA go would mean letting ESA, CSA and JAXA go as well - it's really hard to imagine such a reality...

But once this happened, the first order of business would be to figure out how to bring back to Earth astronauts that are stuck onboard ISS right now. Realistically, the Congress would much more likely go to the President, DoD or whoever else to figure out how to force Russia to bring things where they were...

[Jim]

Okay. A different tact: if Russia was to refuse NASA access to the Soyuz tomorrow, whatever the reason, what changes would Congress require NASA to make to their current plans for procuring a new crew transportation system?

All opinions welcome. If there's anyone who thinks nothing would change, speak up too.

Thanks.

I think there is no way it's gonna happen. The Russians are not stupid enough to destroy the cash cow. And also letting NASA go would mean letting ESA, CSA and JAXA go as well - it's really hard to imagine such a reality...

But once this happened, the first order of business would be to figure out how to bring back to Earth astronauts that are stuck onboard ISS right now. Realistically, the Congress would much more likely go to the President, DoD or whoever else to figure out how to force Russia to bring things where they were...

He is not saying they would strand the crew currently onboard (which is even absurd to even think), he is access for further flights

[Go4TLI]

And also letting NASA go would mean letting ESA, CSA and JAXA go as well - it's really hard to imagine such a reality...

Which is still NASA as NASA pays Russia for ESA, CSA and JAXA crew members.

[edkyle99]

Okay. A different tact: if Russia was to refuse NASA access to the Soyuz tomorrow, whatever the reason, what changes would Congress require NASA to make to their current plans for procuring a new crew transportation system?

Funding.  More funding.  And whatever Congress could do to help NASA shorten the schedule for commercial crew.  I'm not sure if Congress could, or would need to, make first crewed flight availability a higher criterion for contract selection.

 - Ed Kyle

[vulture4]

Okay. A different tact: if Russia was to refuse NASA access to the Soyuz tomorrow, whatever the reason, what changes would Congress require NASA to make to their current plans for procuring a new crew transportation system?

Funding.  More funding.  And whatever Congress could do to help NASA shorten the schedule for commercial crew.  I'm not sure if Congress could, or would need to, make first crewed flight availability a higher criterion for contract selection.

 - Ed Kyle

I believe Musk has suggested that the reduction of commercial crew funding by Congress to about half what the administration requested could delay first human commercial launch by a matter of years.