haha..on the Ares I-X test flight..."It should be noted that Time magazine cited the Ares rocket as the “best invention of 2009.”Yes, that's so important. (rolls eyes)though flawed
Quote from: robertross on 01/15/2010 10:21 pmhaha..on the Ares I-X test flight..."It should be noted that Time magazine cited the Ares rocket as the “best invention of 2009.”Yes, that's so important. (rolls eyes)though flawedIndeed! Smells of desperation and propoganda, as opposed to an objective report.
NASA has made significant cultural progress evolving and strengthening internal communications as well as communications within the technical community. Internally, the Agency now speaks more plainly, openly discusses risk and risk management, and better ensures dissenting voices are heard. Largely gone is the “spin” noted by the CAIB. External communications has been slower to evolve, and “spin” still remains a part of these communications. The Panel does not believe this practice best serves the Agency.
This is all BS, I stopped after a few pages. As the "Safety Advisory Panel", one would think that they should be held accountable for actually going into even minor detail on what they believe "recertification" is defined as or what work would be required. Or, heaven forbid, actually mention the lengths we have gone to in what is called "mid life certification review".Of course they don't, because they are empty suits with a political agenda. If anyone happens to be on here that is on the so called "Safety Advisory Panel" or HQ level NASA, I would be interested to hear what you think about the meaning of this report because my thoughts are these people need to be replaced because they offer no value added. You can PM me if you so choose.
haha..on the Ares I-X test flight..."It should be noted that Time magazine cited the Ares rocket as the “best invention of 2009.”
Elon Musk, founder and CEO of Space Exploration Technologies Corp., said his company's Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon space capsule were designed to meet NASA's published human-rating standards.In an interview Monday, Musk responded to the ASAP findings and recommendations."I have to say I've lost a lot of respect for the ASAP panel," Musk said. "If they are to say such things, then they ought to say it on the basis of data, not on random speculation."SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corp. are developing the Dragon and Cygnus spacecraft, plus new launch vehicles, under a NASA contract to deliver equipment to the International Space Station beginning next year.The ASAP report said neither company "is [human] qualified, despite some claims and beliefs to the contrary."According to Musk, the panel's findings are "bizarre." He says the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft "meet all of NASA's published human-rating requirements, apart from the escape systems.""They've spent almost no time at SpaceX," Musk said. "They've not reviewed our data. They have no idea what what our margins are, and what is and what isn't human-rated."... "The Ares 1 is a paper rocket that's far off in the future," Musk said. "Falcon 9 is a real rocket, most of which is at Cape Canaveral right now."
Here is CSF's response to ASAP:Commercial Spaceflight Federation Responds to the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel’s 2009 Annualhttp://www.commercialspaceflight.org/?p=1058
Quote from: robertross on 01/21/2010 11:37 pmHere is CSF's response to ASAP:Commercial Spaceflight Federation Responds to the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel’s 2009 Annualhttp://www.commercialspaceflight.org/?p=1058"The Atlas V, for example, has a record of 19 consecutive successful launches..."That's all I needed to read!* - Ed Kyle*AV-009 (6/15/07, NRO L-30 (NOSS Gen3)): Centaur RL10 fuel inlet valve failed to seal after first burn. LH2 leak during coast, caused premature RL10 shut down during second burn.