We Need To Get More Comfortable With People Dying In Space

[Joffan]

An article in The Federalist:

We Need To Get More Comfortable With People Dying In Space

Essentially arguing that risk aversion is not only stifling the scope and ambition of space exploration, it is also to some extent making the few missions that qualify less safe, or at least less justifiable in terms of risk vs reward.

Recommend you read it even if you disagree with the idea. Certainly if there is a substantial base anywhere off this planet, we have to get used to the idea that people will die in the course of their duties anyway.

[RanulfC]

Based around Rand Simberg's book which is reviewed here:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2435/1

Randy

[Nomadd]

 People tend to get offended by the idea of assigning a dollar value to a life, but in the end you pretty much have to. You don't but a surplus Sherman tank to take the kids to school, and the "Safety above all" cliches are sloganistic nonsense. There's not and will never be anything that can be "proven" safe.
 It's not so much that I mind the risk adverse, overprotective ninnies of the world. They have a valid place. It's the fact that they invariably ignore issues a hundred times as dangerous that could be solved with a hundredth the effort because they don't make for sexy headlines.

[Hop_David]

The book is Safe Is Not An Option by Rand Simberg.

Rand has always been a proponent of safer, less expensive spaceflight via a higher flight rate. I tend to agree. With more flights we acquire experience. Experience and knowledge is better prevention than trying to second guess every possible failure mode on infrequent flights.

James Nicoll's take: The vending machine theory of space exploitation - Stick enough dead bodies in and we're sure to get a moon colony out. A mean and dishonest misrepresentation, in my opinion.

The larger question: Is manned space flight worth loss of life?

If HSF is limited to LEO stations and the occasional flags and footprints publicity stunts, then the answer's no. It's not worth the large sums of money or loss of human life.

If the goal settelement of space, the answer's yes. Breaking the boundaries that confine us is worth a great deal of sacrifice.

[DMeader]

Where's the "dislike" button?

[Danderman]

If the flight rate is very high, and as a result, there are deaths in space, that would be survivable for spaceflight as a whole.

If the flight rate is low, and there are deaths in space, then space will be seen as too dangerous for most people, and we would be locked into the current paradigm for a long time.

Therefore, the optimum would be a high, safe flight rate, duh.

[Elmar Moelzer]

I agree and then I don't. I think that we have to increase the flight rate and that this makes space flight safer. I do agree that safety at all cost is not an ideal paradigm, especially since it means more expense which in return means lower flight rates. Nobody forces people to go to space. Yet, I do think that deathly accidents have negative publicity effects which cause harm as well. There has to be some sort of middle way. The fact that all new manned space craft have escape systems (while being less expensive than the shuttle) shows that reduced  cost and safety are not mutually exclusive.

[Joffan]

Where's the "dislike" button?

It's that keyboard in front of you, that you can make words with to express your alternative view. What in the article (or the book) were you disagreeing with?

[Robotbeat]

It's simply a fact that in order to get any kind of substantial off-earth presence, we're going to have people dying. Even of unrelated causes.

[Mark S]

Rand Simberg it trolling everyone with that book title, "Safe is Not An Option". Of course "safe" is an option, for reasonable values of "safe". But "perfect safety" is not even possible, much less an option. But I'm sure he's getting plenty of bites.

Airlines are safe, but not perfectly safe. Trains are safe, but not perfectly safe. Cars are not very safe, and motorcycles are deathtraps. But we still ride in trains and planes, and drive cars and motorcycles. And we often carry our loved ones along with us. That doesn't mean that we're comfortable with people dying, in any type of vehicle.

What we need to help the public realize is that death is always a possibility, no matter how many precautions are taken. Especially in space travel, because the energies expended are so high, and the margins for error are so thin, and the possibility of recovering from bad situations is usually very low.

But as with trains, planes, and automobiles, we take those risks, because the rewards outweigh the risks.

[AJA]

An article in The Federalist:

Essentially arguing that risk aversion is not only stifling the scope and ambition of space exploration, it is also to some extent making the few missions that qualify less safe, or at least less justifiable in terms of risk vs reward.

Thought it'd be about long-duration flight effects and all that. But no... they're talking about LAUNCH to LEO.

For an article that (unbelievably) says

Part of the reason why the American public was so upset by the loss of the Columbia crew in 2003 is because they were perceived to have died for something trivial — the trip was mostly known for performing children’s science fair experiments.

I find it odd how it bases its plank on demanding that the FAA back off (to make it easier for commercial crew/space tourism). Though, given the website, I probably shouldn't be surprised.

Isn't the entire point of the book, a pitch to get back to exploration of the frontiers? Because LEO's no longer a frontier, and has become 'trivial'? I don't get how it suddenly becomes more appealing, only because non-governmental entities are pursuing it.

Mount Everest opened up to "casual climbers" - the impulsive checkbox ticker sort (well, those with a big enough wad of cash for discretionary spending atleast); and that's extracting a toll like never before, and no one's happy about it. Not even the guys who make it there and back, because it's not that exclusive a thing anymore. The life-long mountaineers are unhappy - because of possibly the world's worst traffic jams at Hillary step, the wanton littering of base camp and higher, and the souring of the relationship with the sherpas.

All of these issues have LEO analogs. If you're going to do something that's been done before, and demonstrated before - albeit by a different person/organisation, it's only wise to defer to their experience and imbibe the lessons they've learned too. Does that mean there's no room to innovate and experiment with different ways of doing things? No. But if you're doing that, and expanding the frontier in that sense, don't advertise yourself as a routine service to the public (by whom I mean people that are not going to do their own research in order to be fully informed) either.

[Lar]

11 people died building the Golden Gate bridge in the 1930s.

This was considered "acceptable" by most at the time.

5 people died building the Mackinac bridge in the 1950s.

This was considered an improvement over many construction projects of similar size.

Perfect safety is impossible. That doesn't mean that reckless risks should be taken (and I still consider the decision to launch Challenger to have been somewhat reckless at best), but it does imply some calculus of what a life is "worth"

[DMeader]

Where's the "dislike" button?

It's that keyboard in front of you, that you can make words with to express your alternative view. What in the article (or the book) were you disagreeing with?

"Disagree" and "dislike" are two different things. I **really** dislike the title of the article and the title you picked for this thread.

To me this whole thing smacks of trolling. I remember Apollo 1, I remember Challenger and Columbia. Vividly. I know that death is a part of life, but as far as I am concerned, no level of loss of life in a particular endeavor is "acceptable", and is not something to be "comfortable" with.

[Barrie]

Surely what we need to be comfortable with is a small possibility of people dying in space, and the people involved accepting that small possibility.

On the odd occasion when it happens, it would be right to be uncomfortable about it and have a bit of a think about what happened and why.

[Lars_J]

To me this whole thing smacks of trolling. I remember Apollo 1, I remember Challenger and Columbia. Vividly. I know that death is a part of life, but as far as I am concerned, no level of loss of life in a particular endeavor is "acceptable", and is not something to be "comfortable" with.

Do you cross the street? Do you take a drive? Do you fly?

Yes, unfortunately some loss of life is a acceptable in all of those situations. (far more benign than spaceflight) But we do it anyway, because the other choice (not doing it, or preventing the possibility of people doing it) is far worse.

[joek]

Sorry, let's try this again...

The problem will solve itself when governments are no longer the only or primary HSF customers, and individuals have HSF options other than within the constraints of a government program.  I.e., when commercial HSF becomes real and not government-only.  Mongering for government programs (e.g., NASA) to increase their HSF risk tolerance is at best misdirected and a Sisyphean effort.

Imagine what a U.S. government sponsored Everest expedition might look like today?  Or how different Felix Baumgartner's skydiving effort would have looked if conducted by NASA?  Or that the FAA might never issue experimental aircraft certificates?  Or any other number of risky non-government efforts undertaken by private individuals and organizations if subject to the same constraints as a government effort?

Moreover, the U.S. has acknowledge and codified limited regulation and acceptance of inherently higher risk for commercial HSF.  The FAA is restricted from regulating spaceflight participant (occupant) safety.[1]  That was intentional, to avoid over-regulating and stifling a nascent industry, and to allow time to determine a reasonable baseline for determining appropriate regulations.[2]

Want to strap on a rocket and go suborbital, or to LEO, the Moon, or Mars?  In the U.S. the FAA won't object (they can not), as long as you don't unduly endanger the public.  That said, for the foreseeable future (with the possible exception of suborbital), good luck finding a ride that isn't part of a government program, and thus subject to their rules and low risk tolerance.


[1] There are a few, but they are common sense and are generally little more than a reiteration of some basic aircraft safety regulations.

[2] The restriction was first put in place in 2004 until 2012, and subsequently extended until late 2015.  Plenty of good reading on the subject in the FAA COMSTAC archives.

[RanulfC]

Sorry, let's try this again...

The problem will solve itself when governments are no longer the only or primary HSF customers, and individuals have HSF options other than within the constraints of a government program.  I.e., when commercial HSF becomes real and not government-only.  Mongering for government programs (e.g., NASA) to increase their HSF risk tolerance is at best misdirected and a Sisyphean effort.

Imagine what a U.S. government sponsored Everest expedition might look like today?  Or how different Felix Baumgartner's skydiving effort would have looked if conducted by NASA?  Or that the FAA might never issue experimental aircraft certificates?  Or any other number of risky non-government efforts undertaken by private individuals and organizations if subject to the same constraints as a government effort?

Moreover, the U.S. has acknowledge and codified limited regulation and acceptance of inherently higher risk for commercial HSF.  The FAA is restricted from regulating spaceflight participant (occupant) safety.[1]  That was intentional, to avoid over-regulating and stifling a nascent industry, and to allow time to determine a reasonable baseline for determining appropriate regulations.[2]

Want to strap on a rocket and go suborbital, or to LEO, the Moon, or Mars?  In the U.S. the FAA won't object (they can not), as long as you don't unduly endanger the public.  That said, for the foreseeable future (with the possible exception of suborbital), good luck finding a ride that isn't part of a government program, and thus subject to their rules and low risk tolerance.


[1] There are a few, but they are common sense and are generally little more than a reiteration of some basic aircraft safety regulations.

[2] The restriction was first put in place in 2004 until 2012, and subsequently extended until late 2015.  Plenty of good reading on the subject in the FAA COMSTAC archives.

I'm afraid it wont' be quite that easy and simple. The FAA along with everyone else had expected by this time (2014) for there to be at least SOMEWHAT of a database to work with on "spaceflight participants". There isn't which is why the deadlines been extended but its not going to happen.

The idea (and yes Rand Simberg brought this up in the comments section of the Space Reveiw article) that in the US you can "strap-on" a rocket and go suborbital or you and Elon could hop into a Dragon capsule sans LAS and pop into orbit from the Cape or Vandenburgh and there is nothing the US government could or would do to stop you is nonsense.

We'll start with the FAA not granting a launch license. On what grounds? Well for lets look at the "best" case first; Flying in a Dragon capsule launched on a Falcon-9 but without a LAS. (Rands example by the way) Not going to happen, the reason? Simple, dead "spaceflight participants" will not help the "business" and the "risk" is avoidable. No license. SpaceX is working on a LAS for the Dragon so it would make no sense to NOT wait. Space flight IS risky, so is building and flying "experimental" and/or "home-built" aircraft in some ways moreso. Don't expect the FAA to cave just becasue its "spaceflight" there are risks and there are uncessesary risks. The FAAs JOB is to know, (and more importantly decide) which is which.

On what ground would the Cape or Vandenburgh not allow such a launch? Same ones. Nether NASA or the Air Force is going to want to accept the "liability" or PR hit when they do not have to, and they don't. No launch.

Well how about using McGregor or Boca? No facilties would be a start and you still run into the fact that the FAA has to sign off on it. Of course we're ignoring the 800lb gorilla in the room by focusing on the "government" here, for what possible reason would Elon allow it?
"Cause we paid him!"
But pray, tell me please what makes you think he'd accept the contract? He might just so that it was the "government" that shut the launch down if he saw a good business or legal reason to go that route, but my money is on him not accepting a contract. Why? We're still looking at the same reasons, a LAS is coming, what possible reason can you come up with to NOT wait on it?

Elon's a smart guy, he's well aware that the best way to AVOID regulation is to avoid a REASON to be regulated. For the same reason people cringe when someone suggests "strapping" a rocket on and going suborbital just "because" the government can't stop em! That's pure bull. The government CAN and WILL stop you, and if they have to they will make VERY sure when coming up with the "actual" regulations that no one else will be THAT stupid again.

The INTENT of the law is to "avoid over-regulating and stifling a nascent industry, and to allow time to determine a reasonable baseline for determining appropriate regulations" it was in no way a free pass to anyone who wants a launch license. And that too is "on purpose" even though "legally" the FAA is "restricted from regulating spaceflight participant (occupant) safety" they are in the end going to be the final arbitrator. If anyone thinks that last bit means they can't "legally" tell a space flight participant he can't do something because they don't feel it is "safe" enough, then you can of course "fight" that battle in court if you wish. Don't expect to win, don't expect it to stop at any level lower than the Federal level and DO accept the fact that when the final decision comes down if you really WERE trying to defend "being-stupid" that regulation will follow that WILL stop you. And possibly be enough to seriously stifle a "nascent industry" with over-regulation because of what you demanded be done to you.

Does this mean that the FAA will NOT stop anyone from attempting to launch a well concieved, well planned, sufficiently thought out "commerical" launch with "space flght participants" onboard? I haven't seen any indications the FAA is going in that direction, they would be on very shakey legal ground if they did and they could probably drag it out but in the end they would end up with little support to actually enact regulation that restricting. But they ARE a federal agency with all that implies so the chances, it has to be admitted, are non-zero.

But in this case I see Rand (and you) as being right, they would sign off on a launch license and see how it goes. In fact I'd see them encouraging such activities for the next almost two years. They need the data, they need the test cases and above all they need to understand what will stifle and what will grow an industry without letting people get away with murder. Which given the "risky-business" that is space launch is a very real possibility...

Randy

[RanulfC]

Cross posted from another thread since it "fits" better over here:

Sure, space is not the same as any activity on earth, but there are a few analogs and they aren't nearly as tightly regulated nor do they require the sort of training you're claiming will be necessary.

See this is why I say your "not-helping" your case because you are citing the exceptions rather than the majority

There are in fact very few "correct" analogs of activities because Earth is covered by an infrastructure base that has no equivilent in space. Even with inexpensive access that has to come first in order for almost any analogy to "work" enough to make a sensible argument. 

Diving is a sport that can be dangerous and does involve some relatively complex equipment to keep you alive (somewhat similar to spacesuits in that humans can't breathe water much better than vacuum).  Most divers do go through quite a bit of training and certification, but there are "fly by night" operations in other countries where you can don equipment and go diving on the same day with a bare minimum of "training". 

Great as long as you expect and assume that someone is going to get away with "fly-by-night" space launch. Those "fly-by-night" operations fold up as soon as someone is injured or dies and then go and try and set up somewhere else. All the while OFFICIAL diving organizations and governments are trying their best to kill them BECAUSE of the lack of safety. You sure you want to argue that is how commercial space travel should be set up?

Climbing Mt. Everest is quite dangerous and people die every year trying to climb it.  It's also a situation where one person's mistakes can spell disaster for others.  Yet, there seems to be little in the way of regulation and little in the way of required training.  Similar to diving, there are groups that climb Mt. Everest that really have no business doing so, and that's an environment where a "happy day" doesn't involve sitting strapped to a seat during the "dangerous" parts.

And for those exact reasons things are changing Actually there IS "regulation" and "required training" for climbing Mt Everest. The majority of people who have NOT taken at least minimum training and preperation don't make it past the first base camp. The number of people who TRY and fail to climb Mt. Everest far exceeds those that do, and one of the major complaints about the number of people who actually suceed is the fact that unlike lot of other "sports" (like diving) you can in fact PAY to be carried to the top if you have enough money. And at its worst it is an environment that is still far more benign than space.

And I still think the airline analogies are appropriate, provided that emergencies are at least as few and far between as in the very early days of airline travel.  In the beginning of airline travel, flights weren't nearly as safe as they are today, yet the sort of "training" for emergencies being advocated here still wasn't required of passengers.

Airline analogies are not appropriate. The simple fact is that even in early airtravel planes didn't simply go up into the air and then come down a few days later. They "traveled" and that is what caused the expansion of technology and access. They went from "point-a" to "point-b" which is what other forms of transportation were already doing, but in many case the airplane could do it faster if not cheaper. Add the fact that maintaining and operating an "airplane" was supported by a large infrastructure of industry, parts, supplies, peronel and support from the start and you lose all ability to "compare" the two. "Space" has no such system of destinations, no infrastructure, and no supporting market base to draw on. Your attempt at adding a "qualification" fails because of that very lack as well. Airplanes could and did "abort" quite often in the early days with MAYBE the loss of a "ship" but often without major injury or death for people involved. When it DID happen there were new regulations, new procedures, and new technology invented to keep it from happening again, including more aborts.

For a very long time aircraft were technically capable of doing things that no passenger could survive. Airlines flew lower than they were capable of because no "passenger" was going to submit to the indignity of wearing a complicated (and expensive) uncomfortable and prone to failure "pressure suit" despite the fact that aircraft flying in the statosphere could go faster and get to destinations quicker and cheaper. Wearing a "spacesuit" such as the Launch&Landing pressure suits is going to be a requirement because unlike any "airplane" a spacecraft can't simply drop down to an altitude where the passengers can "breath" if it springs a leak. If you're half way to Hawaii in a Stratoliner that's an option, but not if you're halfway to the Moon in Dragon capsule.

Over a hundred years has passed since the Wright Brothers and todays "aircraft" industry standards and regulations, and in that time MILLIONS of "emergencies" have happened on, to, and with aircraft. 99% of them were "minor" and could be easily taken care of by "aborting" back to a lower speed, alititude, the destination or back to base. In all that time even if the "worst" happened and the plane crashed it didn't mean that the passengers and crew were lost. After all they were surrounded by the environment of the Earth. They might lack for food or water at times but they didn't have to worry about running out of air.

Space is NOTHING like that and to forget that or try to gloss over it invites disaster to not only come in but move in and raid your kitchen cabinets! An air tank rupture but no major control functions are effected and the basic vehicle structure appears intact. On an airliner that's a "minor" emergency. Simply land at the nearst airport and wait for repairs or replacement. In Space? We lost a Moon mission and nearly the lives of the astronauts on-board.

Aircraft do not compare to spacecraft. Ships do not compare to spacecraft (No neither do submarines) Trains don't compare to spacecraft. Cars and Trucks do not compare to spacecraft. No form of transportation ON EARTH has managed to make anything but a cursory and very limited analogy to space travel.

Learn those differences, understand the lack of analogy, always keep in mind the reasons space travel is so different than any type of transportation we've had experiance with in the past and you are more than half way to true understanding of how and why it is difficult and costly, you're also more than half way to understanding how and what needs to be done to change the current paradigm and situation.

Don't and commenting on an internet forum is about all the effect you'll ever have.

Randy

[joek]

We'll start with the FAA not granting a launch license. On what grounds? Well for lets look at the "best" case first; Flying in a Dragon capsule launched on a Falcon-9 but without a LAS. (Rands example by the way) Not going to happen, the reason? Simple, dead "spaceflight participants" will not help the "business" and the "risk" is avoidable.

Absurd; nothing you suggest would be grounds for denying a launch license, as the basis for a launch license today has nothing to do with the safety of occupants or craft, and everything to do with public safety.

FAA has no statutory grounds or precedent for interjection or enforcing an opinion based on the "business".  While the FAA may have an opinion as to whether the risk is avoidable and potential effects to the industry, they can not, by law, issue a binding order to prohibit such unless they can show undue risk to the public.

If something bad happens, then yes, the FAA has reserved some post-mortem rights.  However, that does not a-priori limit the risks individuals or organizations may take, and any suggestion to that effect is wrong and a red herring.  In fact, that is how we are most likely to get to agreement of acceptable risk and regulation.  Today the rules are loose; some bad things happen; the rules are tightened; lather, rinse, repeat.

Again, if someone is willing to strap on and risk their own a** on a rocket today, there is nothing the FAA can do to stop them unless they can show there is undue risk to the public.  Without that, and with respect to commercial spaceflight, the FAA is specifically prohibited from doing so.  How much clearer does that have to be?

[john smith 19]

The book is Safe Is Not An Option by Rand Simberg.

Rand has always been a proponent of safer, less expensive spaceflight via a higher flight rate. I tend to agree. With more flights we acquire experience. Experience and knowledge is better prevention than trying to second guess every possible failure mode on infrequent flights.

James Nicoll's take: The vending machine theory of space exploitation - Stick enough dead bodies in and we're sure to get a moon colony out. A mean and dishonest misrepresentation, in my opinion.

The larger question: Is manned space flight worth loss of life?

If HSF is limited to LEO stations and the occasional flags and footprints publicity stunts, then the answer's no. It's not worth the large sums of money or loss of human life.

If the goal settelement of space, the answer's yes. Breaking the boundaries that confine us is worth a great deal of sacrifice.

I'll note that in the 1960's, typically viewed as a time when NASA was much more comfortable with taking risks 3 astronauts died, all test pilots, which IIRC was due to the lack of a fast hatch removal mechanism.Explosive bolts had been designed out due to their premature firing on one of Mercury flights sinking Gus Grissom's capsule.

In the Shuttle era, when NASA was much less comfortable with taking risks 14 astronauts died.

Granted the size of vehicles and number of flights was much higher overall but in that case either a)People should be educated (given prior experience) that deaths are inevitable (if the safety level is no higher) or b) Major efforts taken to lower the risk factors.

IRL it seems there was the appearance of b) being carried out but it did not seem to work.

Simberg would seem to have a point.

No matter how uncomfortable people feel about it. 

[Rocket Science]

Let’s put this a bit into context... The early efforts in the space race were part of the Cold War and the astronauts were either ex or active military on loan to NASA. Flying a space mission then was viewed the same as flying one over the skies of Vietnam, chances were you were not coming home. The main difference being that we knew the astronauts due to the media and them being portrayed as the “best” example of a free nation’s citizens...

Trying to associate spaceflight to some risky leisure activity is a little bit off the mark... My two cents...

[RanulfC]

Absurd; nothing you suggest would be grounds for denying a launch license, as the basis for a launch license today has nothing to do with the safety of occupants or craft, and everything to do with public safety.

FAA has no statutory grounds or precedent for interjection or enforcing an opinion based on the "business".  While the FAA may have an opinion as to whether the risk is avoidable and potential effects to the industry, they can not, by law, issue a binding order to prohibit such unless they can show undue risk to the public.

If something bad happens, then yes, the FAA has reserved some post-mortem rights.  However, that does not a-priori limit the risks individuals or organizations may take, and any suggestion to that effect is wrong and a red herring.  In fact, that is how we are most likely to get to agreement of acceptable risk and regulation.  Today the rules are loose; some bad things happen; the rules are tightened; lather, rinse, repeat.

Like Rand you're taking the "official" stance of the FAA a bit to literally. And the example given not literally enough. While the FAA might have no "statutory" or "precedent" grounding for denying a launch license in regards to "passenger" or "vehicle" safety they have precedents to allow for events when "public safety" is arguably minor at best.

And really denial of a launch license is NOT issuing a "binding order" or any sort. The applicant can appeal. They can in fact take the FAA to court over the matter. That does NOT stop the FAA from doing so if they deem it necessary for whatever "official" reason. The FAA may LOSE every single court battle but they WOULD fight those battles IF they deemed it neccessary.

From everything I've seen (and thanks for the link to COMSTAC by the way) the people involved in the FAA really, really DO want "commercial" space to succeed. They all seem dedicated and motivated and they seem to really care about NOT being obstructive and as helpfule as possible to everyone. That being said they also are clearly members of an organization and agency that care about public safety as well as ensuring that avoidable mistakes and risks are reduced by whatever means is most effective.

Again, if someone is willing to strap on and risk their own a** on a rocket today, there is nothing the FAA can do to stop them unless they can show there is undue risk to the public.  Without that, and with respect to commercial spaceflight, the FAA is specifically prohibited from doing so.  How much clearer does that have to be?

Very clear though also patently false in the aspect you mean Because all the FAA has to do is "show" an undue "risk" the public. People tend to forget that "showing" has nothing to do with "proving," the FAA can simply "show" an undue risk as the basis for denying the license and it falls to the applicant to "prove" otherwise. (Hence the appeal process and possible legal action)

You're exactly right in how the regulation process IS progressing, and how the FAA is planning on handling the extension of that process. That in no way however means that the FAA is obligated to "sit-on-their-hands" and allow someone to take unwarrented risks with "public" safety if those risks can be mitigated. The are a "safety" organization and everyone (including the "someone" who strapped their own A** on a rocket) is a member of the "public" and treated as such.

The "main" issue is not COULD the FAA deny a launch license but if they WOULD at any point for what they felt was "unwarrented" risks. They can it is that simple, and clear. Whether they would or not is not so simple or clear as it would depend greatly on each and every "case" and application.

This has always been the main "fear" for commercial (civil) space because a "resistive" government has the means to stifle such efforts with relative ease. Every indication has been however that the "government" in general and the FAA in specific has both supportive and encouraging towards the development of civil space flight. This is a good thing and hopefully it will continue to be so. However that does not mean that the "government" or any of its branches are "powerless" to be obstructive and resistant IF they were compelled to do so. Quite the opposite in fact.

My main point however, and example in case we've forgotten was launching a Falcon-9/Dragon without a LAS would not be an "acceptable" risk in the eyes of the FAA so they would be denied a launch license. To clarify, of course the "reason" would not be the risk the "space flight participants," as note the FAA is specifically NOT allowed to use that reason. (Officially) However the clear unwarrented risk to the 'general public' if the RSO had to destroy the Falcon-9 and the INTACT capsule were to fall outside of the range might be "incentive" (excuse me "reason") enough to deny the launch license

Now as to whether I think this "likely" at all? No. There are to many factors stacked against such a flight every reaching the point of applying for a launch license for me to think it would reach the point where the FAA would actually have to make the call.

Randy

[QuantumG]

Now as to whether I think this "likely" at all? No. There are to many factors stacked against such a flight every reaching the point of applying for a launch license for me to think it would reach the point where the FAA would actually have to make the call.

That was a very long way to say you agree.

[AS-503]

I'll note that in the 1960's, typically viewed as a time when NASA was much more comfortable with taking risks 3 astronauts died, all test pilots, which IIRC was due to the lack of a fast hatch removal mechanism.Explosive bolts had been designed out due to their premature firing on one of Mercury flights sinking Gus Grissom's capsule.

Apollo 1 crew did not die in space and they were not the only 1960's NASA astronaut fatalities.
The others did not die in space either.

The pure O2 environment at 16 PSI coupled with the less-than-flight-hardware of the boilerplate space craft was the ultimate cause. The lack of an explosive hatch was not why they were killed, its just a complicating factor of the probability of surviving the fire from the O2 at 16 PSI. Even with the explosive hatch the Apollo 1 crew did not have beta cloth spacesuits. The survivability of Apollo 1 even with an exploding hatch was low at best.

Edit: Fixed quotes. ++Lar

[Will]

The book is Safe Is Not An Option by Rand Simberg.

Rand has always been a proponent of safer, less expensive spaceflight via a higher flight rate. I tend to agree. With more flights we acquire experience. Experience and knowledge is better prevention than trying to second guess every possible failure mode on infrequent flights.

James Nicoll's take: The vending machine theory of space exploitation - Stick enough dead bodies in and we're sure to get a moon colony out. A mean and dishonest misrepresentation, in my opinion.

The larger question: Is manned space flight worth loss of life?

If HSF is limited to LEO stations and the occasional flags and footprints publicity stunts, then the answer's no. It's not worth the large sums of money or loss of human life.

If the goal settelement of space, the answer's yes. Breaking the boundaries that confine us is worth a great deal of sacrifice.

I'll note that in the 1960's, typically viewed as a time when NASA was much more comfortable with taking risks 3 astronauts died, all test pilots, which IIRC was due to the lack of a fast hatch removal mechanism.Explosive bolts had been designed out due to their premature firing on one of Mercury flights sinking Gus Grissom's capsule.

In the Shuttle era, when NASA was much less comfortable with taking risks 14 astronauts died.

Granted the size of vehicles and number of flights was much higher overall but in that case either a)People should be educated (given prior experience) that deaths are inevitable (if the safety level is no higher) or b) Major efforts taken to lower the risk factors.

IRL it seems there was the appearance of b) being carried out but it did not seem to work.

Simberg would seem to have a point.

No matter how uncomfortable people feel about it. 

During the Mercury to Apollo era, we only launched manned missions 27 times, and we killed one crew, not during an actual launch.  During the Shuttle era, we killed two crews out of 135 launch attempts. I read this as safety actually improving, but not as much as it should have, since the Soviets/Russians did better on a loss of crew per flight basis during the Shuttle period.

[Hog]

Where's the "dislike" button?

It's that keyboard in front of you, that you can make words with to express your alternative view. What in the article (or the book) were you disagreeing with?

"Disagree" and "dislike" are two different things. I **really** dislike the title of the article and the title you picked for this thread.

To me this whole thing smacks of trolling. I remember Apollo 1, I remember Challenger and Columbia. Vividly. I know that death is a part of life, but as far as I am concerned, no level of loss of life in a particular endeavor is "acceptable", and is not something to be "comfortable" with.

I agree with this, and go so far as to question the timing of this thread and why it is smack dab in the middle the anniversaries of Apollo-1, Challenger STS 51-L and Columbia STS-107 dated Jan 27, 28 and Feb 1 respectively and with respect to the fallen and their families and friends. 

I really can't believe that I am reading this on this respected site at this period in time. Esp. hours before NASA has their day of remembrance.  There is a time and place for everything, a discussion with certain similar components should be discussed, but now certainly is not the time, as I am filled with DISGUST.  Wow, just wow!
Where's the puke button.

[Avron]

No respect.. just none

[QuantumG]

I agree with this, and go so far as to question the timing of this thread and why it is smack dab in the middle the anniversaries of Apollo-1, Challenger STS 51-L and Columbia STS-107 dated Jan 27, 28 and Feb 1 respectively and with respect to the fallen and their families and friends. 

It's the perfect time. People die doing their jobs every day. If we treated their deaths like we do the deaths of astronauts, society would grind to a halt.

[TomH]

I agree with this, and go so far as to question the timing of this thread and why it is smack dab in the middle the anniversaries of Apollo-1, Challenger STS 51-L and Columbia STS-107 dated Jan 27, 28 and Feb 1 respectively and with respect to the fallen and their families and friends. 

It's the perfect time. People die doing their jobs every day. If we treated their deaths like we do the deaths of astronauts, society would grind to a halt.

Yep, QuantumG is absolutely right. It is the appropriate time to discuss it. The notion that we should not discuss it now out of respect for the fallen plays right into the notion that we cannot take risks. Those 17 are heroes. I do think some common sense about listening to lower level engineers could easily have prevented some of those, but their lives should be celebrated more than their deaths mourned.

I think one big reason for the risk aversion is the awful politicians who instantly bash everything government related if one tiny thing in a government program goes wrong. For years on end Ford has delayed the end of the E series vans and the introduction of Transit vans in North America. Sheesh, if this transition were part of the government, you'd hear every politician demanding the complete dissolution of the Ford Motor Company. Congress itself convinces the American people that anything related to government must carry no risk, have no delay, have no problem. Anything favored by one party, when experiencing even mild difficulty, is immediately hailed as a complete failure by the other party. This is a disservice to the American people. The astronaut corps should be promoted as akin to military special forces and Top Gun flight squadrons: risk takers who take casualties when necessary, but get the job done while making bold advances.

[R7]

I agree with this, and go so far as to question the timing of this thread and why it is smack dab in the middle the anniversaries of Apollo-1, Challenger STS 51-L and Columbia STS-107 dated Jan 27, 28 and Feb 1 respectively and with respect to the fallen and their families and friends. 

It's the perfect time. People die doing their jobs every day. If we treated their deaths like we do the deaths of astronauts, society would grind to a halt.

If everybody had 1.5% chance of dying each time they go to work the society would probably grind to halt anyway. Haven't read the book but given Simberg's remedies listed in the article it seems to be more about using safety as a reason to nix SLS than safety itself.

[JohnFornaro]

Where's the "dislike" button?

It's the "Report to Mod" button...

[JohnFornaro]

Now as to whether I think this "likely" at all? No. There are to many factors stacked against such a flight every reaching the point of applying for a launch license for me to think it would reach the point where the FAA would actually have to make the call.

Thanks for taking the time to think and write.  Obviously, other posters have trained their minds to express disrespect in 140 characters or less.

[QuantumG]

Haven't read the book but given Simberg's remedies listed in the article it seems to be more about using safety as a reason to nix SLS than safety itself.

Maybe try reading the book. It won't kill ya.

[jongoff]

People tend to get offended by the idea of assigning a dollar value to a life, but in the end you pretty much have to. You don't but a surplus Sherman tank to take the kids to school, and the "Safety above all" cliches are sloganistic nonsense. There's not and will never be anything that can be "proven" safe.
 It's not so much that I mind the risk adverse, overprotective ninnies of the world. They have a valid place. It's the fact that they invariably ignore issues a hundred times as dangerous that could be solved with a hundredth the effort because they don't make for sexy headlines.

I need to get a copy of Rand's book (seeing as how I'm quoted in it a time or two). I think that Rand's take is a lot less that "we need to get more comfortable with people dying in space" per se, but closer to what you hint at in your first sentence--that you have to trade risk to humans vs. actually accomplishing something and find an appropriate balance that isn't knee-jerk emotion-based.

~Jon

[D_Dom]

 ...find an appropriate balance that isn't knee-jerk emotion-based.

~Jon

Well said, I think the best chance for HSF is to keep pushing the envelope of what is possible outside the confines of taxpayer funding.
I do not mean to imply the taxpayer funded effort should diminish in any way, the accomplishments are impressive and out of this world.
I do believe the private sector is capable of developing the infrastructure and exploring the market for a profitable space industry.

[SkipMorrow]

I was wondering if any of you have read Mars Direct: Space Exploration, the Red Planet, and the Human Future from Robert Zubrin (is he on this forum?). He talks about the cost of an astronaut's life ($50M). He goes into how we could do a cost-benefit analysis for different safety issues, essentially saying that if the cost for safety is > $50M, then that safety feature could be eliminated. Of course, it isn't that simple, but the bottom line is, there must be a finite cost. He states, "...for to set an infinite value on the life of an astronaut is to set both the goals of the space exploration effort and the needs of the rest of humanity as naught". As unappetizing as the thought, I have to agree. But I do wonder if I would feel differently if it were me wearing the spacesuit...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00AMOO98I

[QuantumG]

I was wondering if any of you have read Mars Direct: Space Exploration, the Red Planet, and the Human Future from Robert Zubrin (is he on this forum?).

Very rarely.

He talks about the cost of an astronaut's life ($50M). He goes into how we could do a cost-benefit analysis for different safety issues, essentially saying that if the cost for safety is > $50M, then that safety feature could be eliminated. Of course, it isn't that simple, but the bottom line is, there must be a finite cost.

Yes, Rand's book quotes Zubrin a few times.

[SkipMorrow]

I don't have Rand's book since it isn't available as an e-book. But the things you were saying about his book sounded just like they came from Zubrin's, so it makes sense that he is quoted in Rand's book.

[TomH]

Quote from Chris B. in Honoring the heros-Respecting their legacy.

The goal will be to mitigate the risk as much as humanly and technically possible, for those tasked with the responsibility to be competent...

Chris, I hope you will not take this personally and will not be offended, but respectfully, I have to disagree. Soldiers, police, firemen all go to their duties every day and there is risk. They do not wear their heaviest gear all the time. Troops sometimes move in open personnel trucks; we cannot afford for every one to be in a heavily armored vehicle all the time. Risks and risk aversion have to be balanced against other factors. Cost is one of those factors, but efficiency, productivity, etc. must be considered as well. School shootings are becoming much too ordinary, yet schools don't have funds to establish military perimeters around their campuses. They don't even have the funds to obey the NRA and put an armed guard in every school. Personnel in those three professions above take casualties. They take casualties because they take risks. If risk were mitigated as much as humanly possible the job could not be accomplished. If the risk were mitigated as much as humanly possible in space flight, we simply would not be in space. Like the early days of aircraft, space flight is a risk filled endeavor. Mitigate the risk as dilligently and reasonably as possible I can agree with.  STS-51-L did not have to happen. Diligence on the part of managers in listening to engineers is all that was needed. So in this kind of case, the disaster should not have happened. When risk aversion becomes more important than the goal itself, a goal cannot be reached. There are two parts to our problem: Our goal is too poorly defined to start with, and our risk aversion is more important than what goal we have. Both of those need to change.

[sdsds]

Regarding this general subject I have a favorite hobby horse, which I'm going to take out again and ride a bit here. It's about to whom we think "we" refers.

"We" as human space flight (HSF) enthusiasts are not homogeneous. We are of different ages, nationalities, genders, etc. And even within one nationality (e.g. the United States) we have different affiliations with our national government and with the aerospace industry. This gets confusing because historically all astronaut fatalities have been associated with national government space programs.

Those who are right now closely associated with the United States government (USG) HSF program are by necessity still operating in response to the fatalities of shuttle astronauts. Too many STS crews were lost; something was wrong with how STS was conceived, designed, and/or operated. The details of that don't matter here. What matters is how the current USG HSF programs (SLS and Orion) -- which due to the cancellation of CxP will be the immediate successors of STS -- must treat issues related to loss of crew.

Those involved in Orion and SLS must act as if loss of crew on even a single mission would potentially lead to the complete and final termination of all USG HSF. Yes, the crew lives matter. But the loss to the country (indeed world) would be greater than the loss of those lives. Orion and SLS must be conceived, designed and operated with the assumption that they won't get a second chance.

But that's not the whole picture of HSF in the United States anymore. Dragon is real. If not for safety concerns, a current Dragon capsule launched on a current F9 could support a HSF mission today. CST, DC, SS2, Lynx: these programs are all in some stage of reality too. And they do not face the same constraints as the USG programs.

So those "private" "commercial" "industry" programs are the places where the United States can carry more loss-of-crew risk. NASA leadership knows this, and it is the primary reason why CCDev exists.

(All opinions expressed here are my own. Your mileage may vary.)

[TomH]

sdsds, 

Your points are well taken. You have a good point that those expectations are placed upon NASA. They are placed there in my own mind by congress, which excessively bashes anything government related that experiences difficulties.

Your observations regarding private companies is illustrative of how private corporations are not held to the same standards as government programs. The public and the congress demand more from government than they do from the private sector.

If Boeing were part of the government, the 787 battery issue would have incited a revolt calling for Boeing to be dissolved.

My local school district is forced to provide funds to a charter school in our area. All 49 of our elementary schools have scored higher on standardized tests every single year since the charter school opened. Even though it receives public funds, it is not a public school, therefore it is not held to the same standards as the public schools. The stack of government mandated rules we must follow is literally over 90 feet tall; that of the charter school is virtually non-existant. They can expel problem kids; ours get labeled as having behavior disorders and thus must be coddled.

Nobody complains that Ford's transition from E Series to Transit vans continues to slip year after year. As a private company, they can do as they please.

Medicare costs far less than getting your own treatment directly from medical corporations.

Were USPS a private company, they could close inefficient small branches and allow rates to float with supply and demand. As it is, congress demands they keep all those branches open, that they charge less than all other carriers, and that they operate in the black. First they're hamstrung, then they're brutally bashed by politicians for not being able to meet absurd demands.

Politicians are always saying that government programs should conduct themselves in the manner that private businesses do. The problem is, government refuses to allow that to happen.

You have a point that a LOC could end the HSF program, but that is because the congress has led the public to believe that NASA is a failure if casualties are incurred. My belief is that it should not be that way. It is unrealistic and it actually prevents success.

[KelvinZero]

It isn't just a matter of putting a dollar value on human life. When we ask 'Is it worth it", we are normally asking about something deeper.

Rather than over-caution causing us to avoid meaningful missions, I think missions without much meaning correctly make us not willing to expend many lives to achieve them.

If right now we simply threw safety away, in the current political situation it would just be a justification for SLS missions with even less spent on the non-SLS elements. We would just throw crew out there on the first flight with only a good guess that the life support and reentry and so on would bring them home. We would be expending lives to prop up a corrupt system, not to master critical technologies that bring us closer to space settlement.

At this unfortunate moment in time, a focus on safety is a good way of clawing some money out of that system and into development/proving of in-space hardware which the SLS desperately needs to achieve anything meaningful.

[Rocket Science]

I found this comparison of my pursuit of flying to driving interesting where I choose to take a calculated risk...
Have a look...

http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flying/notes/safetyvsdriving.html

[QuantumG]

I found this comparison of my pursuit of flying to driving interesting where I choose to take a calculated risk...
Have a look...

http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flying/notes/safetyvsdriving.html

I bet spaceflight is safer than either if you continue to use the same units

(the average spaceflight is many days and a lot more miles)

[Rocket Science]

I found this comparison of my pursuit of flying to driving interesting where I choose to take a calculated risk...
Have a look...

http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flying/notes/safetyvsdriving.html

I bet spaceflight is safer than either if you continue to use the same units

(the average spaceflight is many days and a lot more miles)

What exactly is the odometer reading on the old ISS today...

Edit to add: That comparison is overly simplistic as all phase are not equal and could be broken down futher ie. Engine failure at takeoff, vs cruise flight vs landing. Same can be made for spaceflight where ISS is in the cruise portion of flight...

[Chris Bergin]

Quote from Chris B. in Honoring the heros-Respecting their legacy.

The goal will be to mitigate the risk as much as humanly and technically possible, for those tasked with the responsibility to be competent...

Chris, I hope you will not take this personally and will not be offended....

I keep thinking this entire thread is offensive, but I don't really know why and no one is reporting it as such - so that'll be just me then!

I do draw exception to you selectively quoting (so I did it to you too ) and not even linking the article for people to gain the context that I would claim rules out your argument, because my counter would be the article was specific to the fallen astronauts.

I mean, can you imagine if I added "their sad loss will be forever remembered, but let's also not forget there's firemen running into burning buildings". People would rightly say "What the frak? Where did that come from? I know that already, but this article was about the crews of Challenger and Columbia, etc....why did you add that out of nowhere?"

And you are talking to an infantryman, by the way.

The line you quoted is something I'll stand by. I'm talking future tense there, so bringing up the crap storm from STS-51L isn't fair. If you read the article from start to finish, you'll see I absolutely referenced the mistakes and also the path towards improved safety. That was the journey of the article, especially on Shuttle (and thus proven via the post RTF flights).

[QuantumG]

Something less abstract:

Suppose there are two systems that NASA could be choosing from to get astronauts into space. One has a proven reliability about equal to the old system they were flying and the other has an unproven reliability that is about the same. Which one should the astronauts fly on?

Seems obvious, right?

Well no, you see, it's a trick question. I've left out a lot of information that you require to make your decision. Which one is cheaper? Which one supports US industry? Does either require softening of nuclear anti-proliferation regulations?

Being myopic about the safety of the astronauts could lead you to discard these other concerns, which it should be easy to see adds risk to the lives of people who aren't even flying.

[QuantumG]

Might not be accurate, but it's fun!

The Space Shuttle program flew 537,114,016 miles through 134 flights.

So..

Airlines: 0.05 fatal accidents and 1.57 fatalities per 100 million miles
Shuttle: 0.37 fatal accidents and 2.61 fatalities per 100 million miles
Driving: 1.32 fatal accidents and 1.47 fatalities per 100 million miles
General Aviation: 7.46 fatal accidents and 13.1 fatalities per 100 million miles

Even if you were to include Apollo, Gemini, Mercury and the Russian flights, the statistics would seem to indicate that astronauts have historically taken significantly less risk than your average general aviation flier.

[Nomadd]

  Change that to hours.

  Only two jobs in the army, right Chris? Infantryman and support.
  Me <----- Also an ex grunt.

[Rocket Science]

Let’s put this into an even greater context like I said for different phases of flight for aviation. The “official” international boundary of space is 62 miles. 21 astronauts died going to and from that distance except for Apollo 1 which occurred at zero-zero.

As per our friends at Space.com

http://www.space.com/11353-human-spaceflight-deaths-50-years-space-missions.html

If you want to include Michael Adams in X-15-3 at mach 5, just shy of the international boundary of space at 266,000’ at 50 miles (space according to the USAF).

Then we have 22 deaths for significantly less miles travelled... Orbital-cruise portion of flight, thankfully zero...

Now let’s look at the commercial players SS2 and Lynx. They operate to the recognized boundary to space and will be operating during the riskiest portion of spaceflight, powered ascent and entry. Now it makes the miles make more sense as all miles are not equal when it comes to spaceflight as in aviation....

[TomH]

...all miles are not equal when it comes to spaceflight as in aviation....

Mmm, Don't know about that. Most aviation fatalities also occur on takeoff or landing. Not too many planes go boom in mid flight unless it's a terrorist act or an unfriendly nation being too touchy about its airspace boundary.

[Rocket Science]

...all miles are not equal when it comes to spaceflight as in aviation....

Mmm, Don't know about that. Most aviation fatalities also occur on takeoff or landing. Not too many planes go boom in mid flight unless it's a terrorist act or an unfriendly nation being too touchy about its airspace boundary.

Pretty much said that one page back Tom!

[TomH]

...all miles are not equal when it comes to spaceflight as in aviation....

Mmm, Don't know about that. Most aviation fatalities also occur on takeoff or landing. Not too many planes go boom in mid flight unless it's a terrorist act or an unfriendly nation being too touchy about its airspace boundary.

Pretty much said that one page back Tom!

O.K., I get it. It sorta sounded like you were saying not all the miles are the same in space as (they are the same) in avation. Seemed like you were drawing a contrast rather than a comparison. Sorry. 

[Rocket Science]

...all miles are not equal when it comes to spaceflight as in aviation....

Mmm, Don't know about that. Most aviation fatalities also occur on takeoff or landing. Not too many planes go boom in mid flight unless it's a terrorist act or an unfriendly nation being too touchy about its airspace boundary.

Pretty much said that one page back Tom!

O.K., I get it. It sorta sounded like you were saying not all the miles are the same in space as (they are the same) in avation. Seemed like you were drawing a contrast rather than a comparison. Sorry. 

No worries, we're all friends here and we seem to agree on this point.

[DarkenedOne]

...all miles are not equal when it comes to spaceflight as in aviation....

Mmm, Don't know about that. Most aviation fatalities also occur on takeoff or landing. Not too many planes go boom in mid flight unless it's a terrorist act or an unfriendly nation being too touchy about its airspace boundary.

Are you sure about most aviation deaths occurring at takeoff and landing?  I know I used to watch that show air emergencies all the time where they went over many large aviation accidents, and how they happened.  I remember there were a number involving take-off and landings, but most of them if were in-flight.

There are a number of things different when it comes to aviation and space.  For one in aviation if you engines give out you are minutes away from crashing.  In space you really only need to use engines if you want to change orbits.  You do need to fire your engines periodically in order to maintain orbit. 

[Chris Bergin]

I keep thinking this entire thread is offensive, but I don't really know why and no one is reporting it as such - so that'll be just me then!

Heh, now people really are reporting this thread! Ok, DarkenedOne's post can conclude this thread.