http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-coming-train-wreck-for-commercial-human-spaceflight/Doesn't look very promising if commercial was looking for reduced requirements and reduced paperwork costs!
Sigh. Is NASA -intentionally- trying to destroy its future?
As with all good government bureaucracies, NASA believes that improved processes (read: increased bureaucracy) is the answer to preventing future problems. So NASA writes longer and longer specifications and requirements, and demands more and more documentation and proof. Somewhere along the line, we have crossed over the optimum point to ensure safety and just added cost and delay
When Frank Bauer and I proposed a new model of doing business to the agency leaders, we patterned it on the NASA Launch Services organization which acquires expendable launch vehicles for scientific satellites. NLS has much less oversight and far fewer requirements than usual NASA programs because the providers have a proven track record of success launching rockets for the DoD or for commercial users. This model appeared to us to be the way to allow commercial entities to provide safe but much more cost effective space flight transportation.
Wayne Hale makes a really interesting point in his blog post about NASA's Launch Services program:QuoteWhen Frank Bauer and I proposed a new model of doing business to the agency leaders, we patterned it on the NASA Launch Services organization which acquires expendable launch vehicles for scientific satellites. NLS has much less oversight and far fewer requirements than usual NASA programs because the providers have a proven track record of success launching rockets for the DoD or for commercial users. This model appeared to us to be the way to allow commercial entities to provide safe but much more cost effective space flight transportation.Any thoughts on whether NASA Launch Services would be a good model for commercial crew?
Quote from: neilh on 11/15/2010 07:46 amWayne Hale makes a really interesting point in his blog post about NASA's Launch Services program:QuoteWhen Frank Bauer and I proposed a new model of doing business to the agency leaders, we patterned it on the NASA Launch Services organization which acquires expendable launch vehicles for scientific satellites. NLS has much less oversight and far fewer requirements than usual NASA programs because the providers have a proven track record of success launching rockets for the DoD or for commercial users. This model appeared to us to be the way to allow commercial entities to provide safe but much more cost effective space flight transportation.Any thoughts on whether NASA Launch Services would be a good model for commercial crew?Perhaps once a few commercial providers meet the condition I highlighted.
Quote from: Jorge on 11/15/2010 12:52 pmQuote from: neilh on 11/15/2010 07:46 amWayne Hale makes a really interesting point in his blog post about NASA's Launch Services program:QuoteWhen Frank Bauer and I proposed a new model of doing business to the agency leaders, we patterned it on the NASA Launch Services organization which acquires expendable launch vehicles for scientific satellites. NLS has much less oversight and far fewer requirements than usual NASA programs because the providers have a proven track record of success launching rockets for the DoD or for commercial users. This model appeared to us to be the way to allow commercial entities to provide safe but much more cost effective space flight transportation.Any thoughts on whether NASA Launch Services would be a good model for commercial crew?Perhaps once a few commercial providers meet the condition I highlighted.Cause you know, those ULA schmucks have no experience launching billion dollar satellites... ;-)Though I'm guessing you're probably referring more to the capsule side? I have to agree with some of the other questioners--are these standards that any vehicle NASA has designed or used, ever met in their entirety? I wonder if SLS/MPCV will be held to the same standards.~Jon
I love it how so many want to see an instant conspiracy and cry foul.
While Jorge clearly was not talking about ULA as you theorized, everything does not always have to be about them either.
Quote from: OV-106 on 11/15/2010 04:12 pmI love it how so many want to see an instant conspiracy and cry foul.And I love your ability to read stuff into what I wrote that wasn't there. It's truly impressive. Just for the record, I personally think Wayne Hale's point--that this is more well-intentioned bureaucrats than some intentionally malicious anti-commercial-space effort. QuoteWhile Jorge clearly was not talking about ULA as you theorized, everything does not always have to be about them either.My point there (which was meant as a bit of friendly ribbing--I've known Jorge over the internets for almost half my life now) was that a lot of these companies, including Orbital and ULA have actually demonstrated prove track records of success in at least some parts of the commercial crew delivery parts--notice I followed up by pointing out that he was probably talking about the capsules. And I admit that nobody in the US (including NASA) has a demonstrated a recent track record of success with crewed capsules. I just agree with Wayne, that something's gotta give.~Jon
Jon, you are the one who said you have to "agree with some of the other questioners". Given this thread is 1 page long and the "other questioners" along your lines of thinking are saying what they are saying, then I believe it was appropriate for me to comment as I did.
Thank you for commenting and clarifying you do not believe this to be a malicious anti-commercial effort. Yet, you did throw MPCV/SLS into the mix too, possibly to imply a potential double standard so I will also assume that was not your intent.
I'm also glad to know you and Jorge are internet buddies and that you agree with Wayne.
Quote from: Jorge on 11/15/2010 12:52 pmQuote from: neilh on 11/15/2010 07:46 amWayne Hale makes a really interesting point in his blog post about NASA's Launch Services program:QuoteWhen Frank Bauer and I proposed a new model of doing business to the agency leaders, we patterned it on the NASA Launch Services organization which acquires expendable launch vehicles for scientific satellites. NLS has much less oversight and far fewer requirements than usual NASA programs because the providers have a proven track record of success launching rockets for the DoD or for commercial users. This model appeared to us to be the way to allow commercial entities to provide safe but much more cost effective space flight transportation.Any thoughts on whether NASA Launch Services would be a good model for commercial crew?Perhaps once a few commercial providers meet the condition I highlighted.Cause you know, those ULA schmucks have no experience launching billion dollar satellites... ;-)Though I'm guessing you're probably referring more to the capsule side?
Quote from: beancounter on 11/15/2010 01:25 amhttp://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-coming-train-wreck-for-commercial-human-spaceflight/Doesn't look very promising if commercial was looking for reduced requirements and reduced paperwork costs!Sigh. Is NASA -intentionally- trying to destroy its future?
So NASA determines the Human rating requirements for crew transport to and from the ISS. What about a private station like Bigelow's? Would this be the FAA? Could a commercial company, say Boeing, decide that it isn't interested in the ISS and try to get certification for providing crew services to and from private stations?