The Spacefaring Public's Demand for Safety

[Marcus]

With the apparently-successful launch of Bigelow's first inflatable test module, the company seems to have scored a lucky win--using a converted soviet-era ballistic missile to deliver a payload on a (I imagine) tight budget. It could be just my own personal bias, but with the failure of the solar sail launch (from a russian SLBM) and another handful of shoestring-budget launch failures, the fact that the module is in a stable and useful orbit is encouraging. I'm not casting aspersions on the Russian space program; when done correctly with fully-funded civilian launchers, they outshine the EU and the US in terms of combined cost and reliability. Anyway, good for Bigelow, I'm sure they are as relieved as I.

Assuming a successful and on-schedule launch program, Bigelow Aerospace could supposedly field a working space station in the 2012 timeframe, and perhaps start commercial operations shortly thereafter--maybe 2015 to 2020. According to the spaceflightnow.com article, Bigelow Aerospace claims they will need some 16 medium-to-heavy launches per year to maintain their commercial operations which are supposed to include research, tourism, and even sporting events.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0607/12bigelow/

My question is this; what level of risk do you think the spacefaring public will be willing to accept? While the Soyez, Shenzou, and private sounding rocket Spaceship 1 appear to have fairly good track records recently, when you up the volume--say flying tourists, researchers, or zero-g sports teams even at a low turnover rate of once a month--that's 12 manned missions per year. 12 launches, 12 dockings, 12 re-entrys. Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but I don't see a vehicle--government or private--being created within the next 15 years which has a LOV/LOC rate of less than 1%, or a little worse than a loss every decade. That's not too bad, considering how short the public's memory tends to be, but I wonder how many losses of "spaceliners" will the public tolerate and still fly?

Perhaps space--like the skies in the 20's--will be seen as the realm of adreneline junkies, allowing for a higher loss rate than commercial aviation could tolerate today, but I wonder what will happen to the space tourism industry after the first loss of a Bigelow Space Hotels rocket?

[CuddlyRocket]

As far as public perception of safety is concerned, it's not the percentage of launches that are lost that count, it's the number of launches lost per year. (Or more precisely, the number the public see reported.) That's why the airline industry needs to improve its safety performance each year - because there are more flights. It doesn't matter how many flights there are - it's how many crashes there are. If an airliner crashes once a week, the public will be concerned about airliner safety, even if there are a million flights a day.

So to answer your question, given that the number of lives lost per lost launch will be relatively low, I suspect a loss every other year will be sustainable.

[Jim]

Marcus - 13/7/2006  11:51 AM
 when done correctly with fully-funded civilian launchers, they outshine the EU and the US in terms of combined cost and reliability. ?

There is no such a thing (civilian) in Russia.  Costs?  It is easy to be cheaper when the Strategic Rocket Forces is underwriting your launch as a training exercise.

Reliability?  there have been 11 major failures of Russian LV's since the turn of the century.

there has been only 1.5 US for the same time period (.5 for the D-IV heavy)

[Marcus]

So to answer your question, given that the number of lives lost per lost launch will be relatively low, I suspect a loss every other year will be sustainable. [/quote

Perhaps. I would claim it depends on the volume, though. If you get 20+ launches per year, the excitement factor will wear off and the public perception will probably be that "they launch those things all the time" so if one blows up every other year, nobody will get too nervous. Just like no one notices a handful of plane crashes per year. However, if you only have 10 airline flights a year and one crashes every other year, it becomes a bigger deal to John Q. Public. There's a threshold that has to be reached, I'm just curious as to what it is. I'd guess that two manned launches a month could sustain a failure rate of 1 every other year without making people too nervous to fly.

I'm more interested in how much saftey training the passengers will have. Will they be subjected to a full medical and survival training or just strapped in and launched?

I'm sure they'll be given medical tests to ensure they don't kick off of stress-induced natural causes, but what sort of survival training do they really need? It seems like a duck-and-cover routine; maybe something to give psychological comfort, but the reality is that if the automated systems fail, you're probably going to die no matter what you do.

Jim - 13/7/2006  9:59 AM

There is no such a thing (civilian) in Russia.  Costs?  It is easy to be cheaper when the Strategic Rocket Forces is underwriting your launch as a training exercise.

Reliability?  there have been 11 major failures of Russian LV's since the turn of the century.

there has been only 1.5 US for the same time period (.5 for the D-IV heavy)

You're blowing smoke, Jim. And you're off-topic. Care to provide some proof that the cash-strapped Russian military is providing a free (or subsidized) launch for the American billionaire? I don't know that they're not, but I'm not going to let you off with that sort of drive-by innuendo.

Your numbers are meaningless without context. Show me the percentages of successful launches over each vehicle's history--or just use the workhorse rockets if you don't have time for that. If I grant you 0.5 failures for the Delta IV Heavy (And it's really 1. Just getting it to go around doesn't count as a successful launch--you should know that if you're an engineering type and not a management spin doctor), then you've got yourself a program with a 50% failure rate.

If you want to counter my broad-stroke qualitative statement about US space program cost vs reliability, show some real statistics, not spin. If you've got the data handy, I suggest an easy ratio: (Avg Cost Per Kg to LEO)/(Failure Rate). Average it across launch vehicles. Weight it by number of launches or--better yet--kg of payload (potential) lofted to leo if you'd like. Call it the Jim coefficient (Jc).  But if you just want to blow patriotic smoke up our @$$e$ go start your own thread.

[Norm Hartnett]

Sorry Marcus it was a Strategic Rocket Force underwrite see here http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060712/51274066.html and here http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11552613 Which doesn't mean they didn't charge him a pretty penny anyway.

[R&R]

Marcus & Jim,

You're being too hard on the Delta IV Heavy and way off subject with it too.

DIV Heavy was only a few seconds short of making up the first stage shortfall and reaching the required orbit plus the first stage failure (I'll grant you it was a failure) was not catastrophic.  If that launch had been carrying people it would not have been to GSO and would not have come up short and not killed anyone which is my take of this threads topic.  An engineering type would acknowledge it was a test flight and going as far as it did is a partial success and not something that should be held against the program.  And Marcus I don't understand your 50% for the program since 6 Delta IV's have flown.

Now the 1 in Jims 1.5 I'm guessing is Falcon 1 and if so that really might have killed passengers or at least given them a very bad day with the escape.

[Jim]

Marcus - 13/7/2006  4:27 PM

You're blowing smoke, Jim. And you're off-topic. Care to provide some proof that the cash-strapped Russian military is providing a free (or subsidized) launch for the American billionaire? I don't know that they're not, but I'm not going to let you off with that sort of drive-by innuendo.

You want to go toe to toe with me.  You will lose. First pick a topic about something you know about.  

I said nothing about cost

 All the labor for this launch was provided by the Strategic rocket forces.  That in itself is a subsidy.  They do the same for the Proton and other vehicles.  Who else operates a sub for launches, the Russian navy.  There is no such thing as a true commercial launch there.  The military has their hand in the LV processing.  Plus some the "companies" are state owned.

I will agree that  there are "subsidies" for US LV's but not to the extent of the Russian's

Ok, 2 failures.  I included: Titan, Atlas, Pegasus, Taurus, Athena, minotaur, any US that flew since 99.  Not elon's

Russian:  Proton, Soyuz, Molynia, Cosmos, Depnr, Roket, Cyclone.


Add to your ratio the cost of the payload.  

[hyper_snyper]

There was an Orbital Taurus failure in 2001, does that count?  With the Falcon 1 wouldn't that be 2.5 US failures since 2000?

[Marcus]

You want to go toe to toe with me. You will lose.

Quit with the juvenile tough-guy act. I don't care if you're a heavy on this message board or if you're up to your elbows in the space program at the Cape.  I never said you were wrong. I just said I didn't believe you without proper evidence. Don't get your knickers in a twist just because I asked for some backup to your numbers when you rudely hijacked my thread. I apologize for being rude in reply, it was uncalled for--but still fun to write.

Thanks to Norm for providing the links. No apologies necessary. I was completely wrong and now I know more than when I started this thread.

Jim: "I said nothing about cost"

But the original statement that you took issue with addressed the cost/reliability ratio of Russian LV's.

Marcus: "...they outshine the EU and the US in terms of combined cost and reliability."

In fact, the initial section of the paragraph was questioning the reliability of Russian launchers. So you should have said something about cost if you wanted to pick nits. Or you should say something now. Go "toe-to-toe" with me. I don't care if I "lose". I'd like to know the ratio of US (cost per kg-to-leo)*(launch failures) vs the Russians and PRC systems. My WAG is that the US coefficient is a larger number (worse), but having you fetch the numbers to show me that I'm "wrong" is a lot easier than looking it up myself.

Oh, BTW, I was totally wrong to call anything Russian "Civilian" launchers--it's like calling the EELV's "civilian" vehicles--I was simply trying to showcase a contrast between the reliability of field-converted ICBM's and SLBM's and more developed launchers like the Proton. Oh no, I lost! Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a rocket scientist! Well... actually no.

All the labor for this launch was provided by the Strategic rocket forces. That in itself is a subsidy. They do the same for the Proton.

Didn't know that. But considering where the funding comes from for the EELV programs, can't you really say something similiar for a Delta IV or Atlas V launch?

DIV Heavy was only a few seconds short of making up the first stage shortfall and reaching the required orbit plus the first stage failure (I'll grant you it was a failure) was not catastrophic. If that launch had been carrying people it would not have been to GSO and would not have come up short and not killed anyone which is my take of this threads topic. An engineering type would acknowledge it was a test flight and going as far as it did is a partial success and not something that should be held against the program. And Marcus I don't understand your 50% for the program since 6 Delta IV's have flown.

Ah, this thread's all jacked to heck anyway. Okay, I'll conceed that an engineer would give you that it was a test flight, but a pessimistic engineer would still call it a failure as you stranded your bundle of copper rods in what would've been a useless orbit had it been something other than a bundle of copper rods, sensors, and some comm equpment. Maybe you would've been able to reach the proper orbit with the spacecraft's onboard prop supply and GEO injecton motor--if that's where you were going. You did identify a problem with the low-level fuel cutoff sensors during the launch, so hooray. It did not, however, inspire much confidence in the heavy.

Also; I was separating the Heavy from the other configurations of Delta-IV for it's hyperbolic (literary, not geometry) value. My rose-colored glasses are actually painted black.

[R&R]

Okay Marcus back to the original question...

I wonder if any level of launch vehicle or space hotel/station reliability will keep those companies (based on price and level of development I'm thinking only Bigelow, SpaceX and Virgin Galactic would be involved) from being killed by the lawyers if they ever do kill civilians.  The current Asronauts are mostly military or at least treated that way when they're not and NASA seems to be more imune to the ambulance chaser mentality when those good people have been killed.

[JesseD]

Marcus - 13/7/2006  11:51 AM

With the apparently-successful launch of Bigelow's first inflatable test module, the company seems to have scored a lucky win--using a converted soviet-era ballistic missile to deliver a payload on a (I imagine) tight budget. It could be just my own personal bias, but with the failure of the solar sail launch (from a russian SLBM) and another handful of shoestring-budget launch failures, the fact that the module is in a stable and useful orbit is encouraging. I'm not casting aspersions on the Russian space program; when done correctly with fully-funded civilian launchers, they outshine the EU and the US in terms of combined cost and reliability. Anyway, good for Bigelow, I'm sure they are as relieved as I.

Assuming a successful and on-schedule launch program, Bigelow Aerospace could supposedly field a working space station in the 2012 timeframe, and perhaps start commercial operations shortly thereafter--maybe 2015 to 2020. According to the spaceflightnow.com article, Bigelow Aerospace claims they will need some 16 medium-to-heavy launches per year to maintain their commercial operations which are supposed to include research, tourism, and even sporting events.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0607/12bigelow/

My question is this; what level of risk do you think the spacefaring public will be willing to accept?

Perhaps space--like the skies in the 20's--will be seen as the realm of adreneline junkies, allowing for a higher loss rate than commercial aviation could tolerate today, but I wonder what will happen to the space tourism industry after the first loss of a Bigelow Space Hotels rocket?

well, reading Bigelow's write-up, I can guarantee you that Bigelow will have to put a SIGNIFICANT amount of resources into redundancy and communication before anyone will want to go up with them.  For all that the media is talking about the 500 Million Dollars dedicated, they seem to have sent this first shot up being not very well prepared.

[DigitalMan]

It seems to me it would have been a waste of resources to build a huge communications infrastructure NOW when Bigelow is only beginning a series of tests that will run for years.  If he had done so it would have inflated costs and those resources would be underutilized for years.  No doubt the communications infrastructure will be expanded as it is needed (perhaps some improvements will be made by the launch in the fall) but what exactly would be the purpose right now?  The ability to transfer pictures more readily would be interesting but hardly seems worth the investment.

[JesseD]

true enough.  However, they keep saying that they are committed to this process, they are absolutely going to be doing multiple launches, etc., seems like ensuring power for their mission control center would be a no-brainer first step!  even for a first launch...

[DigitalMan]

That was pretty funny.