(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?
The following went up on Chairman Wolf's website just a little while ago------------------WOLF STATEMENT ON FUTURE OF COMMERCIAL CREW PROGRAMWashington, 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.
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
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.
Always happy times when the ASAP meet:http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/06/asap-certification-amid-praise-spacexs-success/
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.
Quote from: beb on 06/22/2012 01:46 pmClongdon'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.
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.
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.
2. Certification was done with COTS/CRS under FAR.
YG1968 - I think technically the certification took place under the CRS part of the contract, which was FAR. But you had parts of CRS and COTS occurring together.
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 06/23/2012 03:54 pmYG1968 - I think technically the certification took place under the CRS part of the contract, which was FAR. But you had parts of CRS and COTS occurring together. COTS allow them to get paid for the certification
