Author Topic: ASAP insist on NASA certification amid praise for SpaceX success  (Read 9764 times)

Online Chris Bergin

Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
(Animation created from some of the 114 hi res photos (all available in L2) taken by Mike Fossum on the ISS)

Sorry animation of what?  I assume that's the Dragon, but you don't really say it.  Shuttle was topic of paragraph before and after this caption.. so is it Shuttle or Dragon?
« Last Edit: 06/22/2012 06:22 am by SpacexULA »
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Online Chris Bergin

(Animation created from some of the 114 hi res photos (all available in L2) taken by Mike Fossum on the ISS)

Sorry animation of what?  I assume that's the Dragon, but you don't really say it.  Shuttle was topic of paragraph before and after this caption.. so is it Shuttle or Dragon?

Both Dragon images are from L2, but the animation is the only animation in the article, and that line is right next to it....
« Last Edit: 06/22/2012 06:25 am by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline MP99

It's worth noting that NASA recently agreed to FAR contracts for the post-CCiCap period, as called for in ASAP's letter. Sounds like everyone is pulling in the same direction on this one?

The following went up on Chairman Wolf's website just a little while ago
------------------
WOLF STATEMENT ON FUTURE OF COMMERCIAL CREW PROGRAM

Washington, D.C. (June 5, 2012) – Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), chairman of the House Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee, today released the following statement regarding his agreement with NASA on the future of the commercial crew program:

...
 
Additionally, NASA has stated that it will reduce the number of awards anticipated to be made this summer from the 4 awards made under commercial crew development round 2 to not more than 2.5 (two full and one partial) CCiCAP awards.  This downselect will reduce taxpayer exposure by concentrating funds on those participants who are most likely to be chosen to eventually provide service to ISS.

NASA also has stated that, after the CCiCAP phase, future program funding will only come in the form of FAR-based certification and service contracts.  Further, to help prevent a problematic logistical “choke point” at the beginning of the certification phase, NASA will also produce an important new procurement strategy for awarding these FAR-based contracts, which will be substantively complete prior to the awarding of CCiCAP funds.



I am also wondering if there's any relevance in the news that Mary Lynne Dittmar felt significant enough to start a new thread for, where FAA & NASA will coordinate on standards:-

NASA, FAA Advance National Goals in Commercial Human Space Transportation with Landmark Agreement

Released this morning:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/jun/HQ_12-190_NASA-FAA_MOU.html

Quote
WASHINGTON -- The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and NASA have signed a historic agreement to coordinate standards for commercial space travel of government and non-government astronauts to and from low-Earth orbit and the International Space Station (ISS). The two agencies will collaborate to expand efforts that provide a stable framework for the U.S. space industry, avoid conflicting requirements and multiple sets of standards, and advance both public and crew safety.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the two agencies establishes policy for operational missions to the space station. Commercial providers will be required to obtain a license from the FAA for public safety. Crew safety and mission assurance will be NASA's responsibility. This approach allows both agencies to incorporate experience and lessons learned as progress is made.

cheers, Martin

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12101
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7497
  • Likes Given: 3807
Very informative article Chris - thank you.

[mounts soapbox]

So the ASAP and NASA have put their collective wisdom on the table and made pronouncements to commercial companies about "thou shalt and thou shalt not" in regards to launching people into LEO. How wonderful. Both organizations have become so risk averse and bound in layers upon layers of totally unnecessary red tape that it is unthinkable to them that somebody else besides them might actually know what they are doing. Therefore, if the rest of us want to fly we must agree to be drawn into their web of micro-management and red tape and over burdensome regulation.

They just don’t get it. What are they going to do if we refuse to allow ourselves to become burdened to the point of non-profitability by their collective and oppressive so-called "oversight", tell us we are not allowed to conduct business here anymore?

As much as I admire NASA for its past, I abhor what the agency has become - just another bloated and overblown government bureaucracy that can’t get out of its own way. I didn’t used to feel this way but the last 7 years of being inside the factory watching the sausage being made has had a profound affect on me.

I completely agree with Jeff Greason that if he were to become NASA Administrator that on his first day in office he would seriously consider firing absolutely everybody, and then on the second day sit down and think about who he wanted to re-hire that would help him completely remake the agency in a different mold. That’s the best way to reform NASA, which needs that kind of reform badly.

Let NASA, ASAP and the FAA regulate away for anybody that wants to fly to the ISS because it’s theirs, but they do not own LEO and the last time I checked LEO was outside the territorial waters of the US. Nobody needs, nor should they seek, ASAP, FAA or NASA permission to go there unless of course, they think that US citizens need an Exit license to leave US territory.

Any commercial company that is smart enough to figure out how to reliably and safely get to LEO and back again consistently is also smart enough to know that high standards of quality and safety must be maintained if they are to continue to be able to operate profitably. If they don’t they will quickly go out of business. They don’t need big brother standing over their shoulder making them fill out a dozen reports in triplicate about how many hairs are standing up on the back of their neck because NASA is breathing down their neck like a she-bear protecting her cubs.

Air transportation companies that don’t consistently safely deliver their passengers to their destinations and back again quickly go out of business. Commercial transportation to LEO will be no different. The industry will be self-culling. Nobody is going to be stupid enough to expend the enormous funds necessary to even get there the first time without making damn sure they can continue to do it profitably. Big Brother’s presence is not necessary and serves only to stifle the industry. Rather than set even more standards to meet and write even more regulations to ensure compliance, they need to just get the hell out of the way. Governmental regulation of this industry should be absolutely minimal! These commercial people know what they are doing and it's time the government recognized that.

Government regulation should serve to enable this industry, not control it!

Big Brother go home!

[dismounts soapbox]
« Last Edit: 06/22/2012 12:30 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Actually, the FAA is just as picky with their oversight as NASA could be, when it comes to commerical airlines.

I remember a time not that long ago that American had to ground all of their MD-80s because their technicians didn't install the wire ties with the required spacing. As if it actually affected flight safety that a cable has a wire tie every 1.5 inches instead of every inch.

Can you imagine the same FAA with pre-flight inspections and maintenance requirements before every flight ?

Offline beb

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 8
Clongdon's and LurkerSteve's comments while food for thought they also have a streak of nonothingism in them. So the FAA grounded some  planes because the wiring harness ties were not properly spaced. Does that affect flight safety, I don't know. But it seems like there are have been a lot less plane crashes in recent times then when I was a kid 40-50 years ago.

Something to keep in mind is that when it comes to cost versus safety costs invariably wins out. OSHA is widely hated by companies for imposing safety standards on equipment and work environments. Some requirements seem petty but unless each requirement is specifically and explicitly detailed lawyers for the companies will simply and endlessly argue for some variation or another. So when ASAP lays out the certifications needed to launch humans into space, that seems to me to be a good thing. And by being out there in black and white every hopeful builder of a crewed spacecraft will know the ground rules. To me this seems like a good thing.

Two specific examples where government regulations have been a good thing. Auto safety. Just specify a common heights for bumpers made cars safer. Food poisoning. Because of the FDA we expect to find out food wholesome and edible.

I do not deny that there can be over-reach at times but on the whiole I'd err on the side of safety.

Offline brihath

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 28
After reading the article, I guess I don't fully understand what the ASAP panel's specific concerns are.  It seems more like the robot flailing its arms saying "Danger, Will Robinson!"

With specific regard to SpaceX's Dragon, I thought all vehicles that dock or berth with the ISS must meet human spaceflight safety requirements, since humans enter and work in them.  The main concerns I can think of might relate to launch vehicle reliability and abort capabilities, and it seems to me that SpaceX is already all over those requirements.

Also, regarding the comments that Airline safety has improved because the FAA has driven improvement, I am not sure that coincidence is the same as causality.  One example I can think of is the ETOPS requirement for commercial flights over water.  Two engine jet aircraft now routinely cross the Atlantic and Pacific, largely because aircraft and engine manufacturers improved reliability with a goal of reducing costs and fuel consumption.  They were then able to present those reliability figures to justify changing the ETOPS requirement.


Offline cro-magnon gramps

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1548
  • Very Ancient Martian National
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 843
  • Likes Given: 11007
FIRST! I have not been drinking (YET!!)  ???

I Like the "Lost In Space" scenarios, which western audiences will remember. Though for Brits, (I had to walk away lest I say something improvident ;) )whilst I was doing the dishes, I had a revelation of a PG Wodehouse novel in the making, all the characterizations of Blandings Castle together, except I cannot for the life of me find Jeeves in all this, which depresses me. NOW, I think I need a drink  ::)

Gramps
Gramps "Earthling by Birth, Martian by the grace of The Elon." ~ "Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but it has not solved one yet." Maya Angelou ~ Tony Benn: "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself."

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4492
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Always happy times when the ASAP meet:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/06/asap-certification-amid-praise-spacexs-success/


Good article as always.


ASAP as usual, MSFC lovers complete with delux series bias blinders courtesy Shelby's office. Nothing has changed.

I have to ask honestly, given the fact that these guys have proved themselves out to be a completely biased body, why the heck are they relevant to policy anymore? They shouldn't be, IMO. If the next POTUS is smart he will keep these guys and their ideas at arms length.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4492
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Clongdon's and LurkerSteve's comments while food for thought they also have a streak of nonothingism in them. So the FAA grounded some  planes because the wiring harness ties were not properly spaced. Does that affect flight safety, I don't know. But it seems like there are have been a lot less plane crashes in recent times then when I was a kid 40-50 years ago.

Something to keep in mind is that when it comes to cost versus safety costs invariably wins out. OSHA is widely hated by companies for imposing safety standards on equipment and work environments. Some requirements seem petty but unless each requirement is specifically and explicitly detailed lawyers for the companies will simply and endlessly argue for some variation or another. So when ASAP lays out the certifications needed to launch humans into space, that seems to me to be a good thing. And by being out there in black and white every hopeful builder of a crewed spacecraft will know the ground rules. To me this seems like a good thing.

Two specific examples where government regulations have been a good thing. Auto safety. Just specify a common heights for bumpers made cars safer. Food poisoning. Because of the FDA we expect to find out food wholesome and edible.

I do not deny that there can be over-reach at times but on the whiole I'd err on the side of safety.


Yes those harnesses do affect saftey, that was the reason or part of the reasons for many of the crashes "40-50" years ago and in fact it was alot more recent then that. The airline industry remained relatively unsafe by comparison to now until the late 90's. And even with modern advances, all of that means nothing if critical electrical systems chafe, arc, and fail.

And I can tell you that aircraft structure moves alot during a flight cycle. Anything that is not tied down, strapped, and run properly will chafe. The wiring becomes exposed, and then your just asking for a major short.


So yea, that was and is still a big deal, for aircraft and spacecraft alike electrical systems control essentially *everything* so if you have anything that can cause major faults that's a critical problem.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 14
Clongdon's and LurkerSteve's comments while food for thought they also have a streak of nonothingism in them. So the FAA grounded some  planes because the wiring harness ties were not properly spaced. Does that affect flight safety, I don't know. But it seems like there are have been a lot less plane crashes in recent times then when I was a kid 40-50 years ago.

Something to keep in mind is that when it comes to cost versus safety costs invariably wins out. OSHA is widely hated by companies for imposing safety standards on equipment and work environments. Some requirements seem petty but unless each requirement is specifically and explicitly detailed lawyers for the companies will simply and endlessly argue for some variation or another. So when ASAP lays out the certifications needed to launch humans into space, that seems to me to be a good thing. And by being out there in black and white every hopeful builder of a crewed spacecraft will know the ground rules. To me this seems like a good thing.

Two specific examples where government regulations have been a good thing. Auto safety. Just specify a common heights for bumpers made cars safer. Food poisoning. Because of the FDA we expect to find out food wholesome and edible.

I do not deny that there can be over-reach at times but on the whiole I'd err on the side of safety.

There is a role for govt regulation...but first let there be an industry to regulate.  Think of the early 1900---people experimentied with planes and people died.  But guess what---planes got safer as people learnt what worked and what did not.  If NASA or ASP had been able to regulate airplane development no plane would have flown.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4492
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Clongdon's and LurkerSteve's comments while food for thought they also have a streak of nonothingism in them. So the FAA grounded some  planes because the wiring harness ties were not properly spaced. Does that affect flight safety, I don't know. But it seems like there are have been a lot less plane crashes in recent times then when I was a kid 40-50 years ago.

Something to keep in mind is that when it comes to cost versus safety costs invariably wins out. OSHA is widely hated by companies for imposing safety standards on equipment and work environments. Some requirements seem petty but unless each requirement is specifically and explicitly detailed lawyers for the companies will simply and endlessly argue for some variation or another. So when ASAP lays out the certifications needed to launch humans into space, that seems to me to be a good thing. And by being out there in black and white every hopeful builder of a crewed spacecraft will know the ground rules. To me this seems like a good thing.

Two specific examples where government regulations have been a good thing. Auto safety. Just specify a common heights for bumpers made cars safer. Food poisoning. Because of the FDA we expect to find out food wholesome and edible.

I do not deny that there can be over-reach at times but on the whiole I'd err on the side of safety.

There is a role for govt regulation...but first let there be an industry to regulate.  Think of the early 1900---people experimentied with planes and people died.  But guess what---planes got safer as people learnt what worked and what did not.  If NASA or ASP had been able to regulate airplane development no plane would have flown.

Correct and this is where I agree with Chuck.


The problem that we have here is not merely over-regulation, its an issue of biased regulators. NASA I won't speak for but I can tell you from what we saw during CXP, ASAP is 100% biased toward's MSFC projects.

You cannot expect anything to get done if your regulating bodies are corrupt. Case and point: Our economy.


The two choices here for the next POTUS, or someone (I hope), are basically:

1. Tell HQ not to take these people seriously anymore and ignore them.

2. Better option: Gut ASAP and replace it with people who know what their talking about.


But leaving things as they are will simply extend our HSF/capability gap and reduce the number of useful years we get out of ISS.
« Last Edit: 06/22/2012 06:13 pm by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline LegendCJS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2

There is a role for govt regulation...but first let there be an industry to regulate.  Think of the early 1900---people experimentied with planes and people died.  But guess what---planes got safer as people learnt what worked and what did not.  If NASA or ASP had been able to regulate airplane development no plane would have flown.

You are wrong in assuming that there is no spaceflight industry to have a regulatory safety president now and that wild cow-boy-ism is the only way to go for the industry to develop (as was done with early aviation), at least for the first few decades of commercial spaceflight:

No one knew what kind of reliability/ safety could be possible or how to build safe early airplanes, let alone regulate them in 1900.  But given that its has been a proven fact that you can take multiple people to orbit/ the moon and back reliably for over half of a century now, the budding commercial spaceflight industry does not have the same excuse that this is an all new frontier to engineer and explore.  Following your reasoning, the equivalent of the regulatory requirements of aviation in the 1950s is what is needed for spaceflight now.

Remember: if we want this whole space thing to work out we have to optimize for cost!

Offline rlmoser

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 4
(Animation created from some of the 114 hi res photos (all available in L2) taken by Mike Fossum on the ISS)

Sorry animation of what?  I assume that's the Dragon, but you don't really say it.  Shuttle was topic of paragraph before and after this caption.. so is it Shuttle or Dragon?

Mike Fossum wasn't on the ISS during the Dragon visit, so it would have to be Shuttle.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17528
  • Liked: 7266
  • Likes Given: 3114
Here are the ASAP minutes that are discussed in the article:
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/ASAP_Public_Meeting_Minutes_5-25-2012.pdf

Offline jkumpire

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 7
This is an argument about how much regulation is enough regulation, with the regulators so hard up to make sure nobody blames the regulators if something bad happens. The fact of the matter is the disease infects our country like nobody's busniness, since wherever there is a problem, death, or tragedy there is a laywer to sue someone for a number with 6 or 7 zeros on it, and a liberal legislator willing to regulate it by law or bureaucratic fiat.

Then you will find some economist who will write a paper saying how great it is government got involved in this industry so it can grow, or how regulations saved people $XXXXXXXXXX. 

We ought to send each member of ASAP a box of bubble wrap so they can find a way to wrap everyone involved in Commercial Crew safely so nobody will ever have to take a risk, and everyone will be so safe we never do anything significant again.

This is ugly.
   

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12101
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7497
  • Likes Given: 3807
This is an argument about how much regulation is enough regulation, with the regulators so hard up to make sure nobody blames the regulators if something bad happens. The fact of the matter is the disease infects our country like nobody's busniness, since wherever there is a problem, death, or tragedy there is a laywer to sue someone for a number with 6 or 7 zeros on it, and a liberal legislator willing to regulate it by law or bureaucratic fiat.

Then you will find some economist who will write a paper saying how great it is government got involved in this industry so it can grow, or how regulations saved people $XXXXXXXXXX. 

We ought to send each member of ASAP a box of bubble wrap so they can find a way to wrap everyone involved in Commercial Crew safely so nobody will ever have to take a risk, and everyone will be so safe we never do anything significant again.

This is ugly.
   

With all that bubble wrap I wonder if they would float?  ;D
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Those lacking the “proper attachments” should not apply for spaceflight…
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 4
Ok,
Let me step back a moment, and talk about regulation, both with in NASA, and within FAA. 

First, and with apologizes to Chris, lets start with FAA, because I am seeing a lot of comments made that would do to be better informed. 

1)  AST, within FAA, handles the regulation of launching and re-entry of spacecraft.  AST and the methods it uses to regulate are substantially different than that of AVS, which regulates airplane safety.  This has to do with culture, and airplane reliability vs launch vehicle reliability, and so forth.

3)  Right now, AST's authority to impose regulations is focused on protecting univolved 3rd parties - that is, people who have no tie to either the launch vehicle, or the payload, or so on.  Its to protect the farmer in a the field that isn't on the flight path that gets hurt.  They do not regulate with regard to providing safety for spaceflight participants or other payloads EXCEPT when it impacts 3rd party saftey.  By having this regulation, I believe (am not totally certain) that this is how they justify the risk-sharing insurance liability regime (otherwise known as indemnification), which protects the industry if there is a serious flight incident. 

4)  The recent agreement between NASA and AST is based on the same agreement that NASA has with AST for the COTS and CRS missions.  And lets assume, for the moment, that a commercial company was launching an entirely private mission - they still have to get a launch liscence (and this has been true for a while). 

IMHO, the deal between NASA and AST is a very good situation. 

Turning to the issue of ASAP - sigh. 

1.  Nobody, and I mean nobody, is articulating a suggestion that NASA doesn't have a need/right for certification (in fact, to go one step further, NASA retains the ultimate authority, since they can always walk away). 

2.  Certification was done with COTS/CRS under FAR. 

3.  What really eggs me on is how they try to suggest there is two different way for Commercial Crew to go forward.  There really isn't.  There are details to be worked out, but their "two options" are really 2 parts of the same plan.  What is not going to happen is for development or testing (including Flight testing) to occur under FAR.  That will occur under SAA. 

It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Tags:
 

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