Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 01/23/2018 01:34 amWhen dealing with quality and safety standards it is irrelevant whether you do something yourself or someone else does it. The same quality standard applies. The SLS's main requirements document should specify its LOC and LOM requirements.A difference between the SLS and Orion's LOC to the ISS and CCDev LOC needs explaining and authorising. Possibly by Congress.The SLS having multiple mission types means that instead of having a single LOC it requirements should contain a table of LOCs and LOMs.Let me put it this way: when was the last time NASA had to explain something to itself?Answer: Challenger and Columbia.Additionally: notice the bolded statement above? Well, NASA doesn't agree with it, because they don't require their own vehicle (SLS) to launch unmanned seven times before they put a crewed vehicle on top of it.It is plain and simple: SLS is a NASA vehicle. As such they DO NOT apply the same standards to SLS, that they apply to a vehicle built by someone else.
When dealing with quality and safety standards it is irrelevant whether you do something yourself or someone else does it. The same quality standard applies. The SLS's main requirements document should specify its LOC and LOM requirements.A difference between the SLS and Orion's LOC to the ISS and CCDev LOC needs explaining and authorising. Possibly by Congress.The SLS having multiple mission types means that instead of having a single LOC it requirements should contain a table of LOCs and LOMs.
2. CCDev launch rate is much higher, therefore it needs to be safer. The CCDev vehicles are expected to have a launch rate of about 4 per year were as SLS will likely have 1 or less.
...Atlas V launched what, 8-10? ...
Quote from: woods170 on 01/23/2018 07:15 amQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 01/23/2018 01:34 amWhen dealing with quality and safety standards it is irrelevant whether you do something yourself or someone else does it. The same quality standard applies. The SLS's main requirements document should specify its LOC and LOM requirements.A difference between the SLS and Orion's LOC to the ISS and CCDev LOC needs explaining and authorising. Possibly by Congress.The SLS having multiple mission types means that instead of having a single LOC it requirements should contain a table of LOCs and LOMs.Let me put it this way: when was the last time NASA had to explain something to itself?Answer: Challenger and Columbia.Additionally: notice the bolded statement above? Well, NASA doesn't agree with it, because they don't require their own vehicle (SLS) to launch unmanned seven times before they put a crewed vehicle on top of it.It is plain and simple: SLS is a NASA vehicle. As such they DO NOT apply the same standards to SLS, that they apply to a vehicle built by someone else.Exactly.This is based on the premise that NASA knows what it is doing in rocketry... see?
Quote from: abaddon on 01/23/2018 05:27 pm...Atlas V launched what, 8-10? ...6
Quote from: AncientU on 01/23/2018 01:44 pmThis is based on the premise that NASA knows what it is doing in rocketry... see? And it does. https://www.nasa.gov/missions
This is based on the premise that NASA knows what it is doing in rocketry... see?
Orbital rocketry is not spacecraft design, these are completely different things.
As for credibility being shot, the same applies companies that do static fires with a spacecraft attached.
Quote from: meberbs on 01/24/2018 12:57 amOrbital rocketry is not spacecraft design, these are completely different things.Anything with rockets is rocketry. Orbital doesn't mean anything different, same principles apply across the spectrum of missions.As for credibility being shot, the same applies companies that do static fires with a spacecraft attached.
Quote from: Jim on 01/24/2018 01:12 amQuote from: meberbs on 01/24/2018 12:57 amOrbital rocketry is not spacecraft design, these are completely different things.Anything with rockets is rocketry. Orbital doesn't mean anything different, same principles apply across the spectrum of missions.As for credibility being shot, the same applies companies that do static fires with a spacecraft attached.Accidents happen. What's important is to learn from them and not do them again. Thus no more spacecraft on static fires.NASA very nearly lost a crew on STS-1. Excusable as remote/autonomous control wasn't nearly as established as it is nowadays, different time and acceptance of risks, etc. But 30 odd years later those things have changed and they are/were looking at crew on EM-1 !
Quote from: Jim on 01/24/2018 01:12 amAs for credibility being shot, the same applies companies that do static fires with a spacecraft attached.No, that is progress. Doing something new based on prior positive experience and risk analysis. When there is a failure, analyze it, learn from it, re-do risk analysis, take corrective action, continue with an improved design. Far different from putting people on the first flight of a brand new craft.
I gave up on NASA risk analysis when they made the tortured claim that Ares I would be safer than an EELV.
Quote from: envy887 on 01/22/2018 05:20 pmQuote from: Jim on 01/19/2018 12:36 pmIt is a common practice to go near a fueled rocket. See Ice teams, red teams, closeout crew, etc. It WAS common practice to go near a fueled Shuttle stack. That does not make it great idea. Does ULA allow ground crew near a fueled Atlas or Delta?Yes, every launch vehicle contractor has a crew that is set up to go near a fueled launch vehicle for troubleshooting. It is not a rare event.
Quote from: Jim on 01/19/2018 12:36 pmIt is a common practice to go near a fueled rocket. See Ice teams, red teams, closeout crew, etc. It WAS common practice to go near a fueled Shuttle stack. That does not make it great idea. Does ULA allow ground crew near a fueled Atlas or Delta?
It is a common practice to go near a fueled rocket. See Ice teams, red teams, closeout crew, etc.
What speaks for NASA is that they were asked by the current administration to look into crew on EM-1. NASA did so and (fortunately) concluded that crew on EM-1 was technically possible but not a good idea when viewed from schedule-, financial- and safety repercussions.NASA never, by themselves, considered putting crew on EM-1. They had learned the lesson from STS-1.
NASA will not put a crew on EM-1, cites cost – not safety – as main reason
At the end of the day, we found it technically feasible to fly crew on EM-1, as long as we had a commitment of additional resources and schedule
Based on this study, NASA concluded crew could have flown on Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1), provided timely and sufficient funding, with an increased risk acceptance and moving the launch schedule to most likely early 2020.
Quote from: meberbs on 01/24/2018 12:57 amOrbital rocketry is not spacecraft design, these are completely different things.Anything with rockets is rocketry. Orbital doesn't mean anything different, same principles apply across the spectrum of missions.
While it is good that NASA would not have done this study without external prompting, this is not NASA learning their lesson. Safety is a technical criteria, so saying "technically feasible" means that the safety risks are acceptable, STS-1's lesson was that the risks are not acceptable without a strong reason that crew is required.Point is analysis based LOC estimates are not as good as flight history, so demonstration requirements applied to CC are good, but should also be applied to all NASA programs. There is nothing magical about NASA that makes their analysis more accurate.
Quote from: kalmes on 01/24/2018 03:11 amI gave up on NASA risk analysis when they made the tortured claim that Ares I would be safer than an EELV. I'm not sure it's fair to compare NASA under Mike Griffin with the NASA of today.