-
#1240
by
eric z
on 15 Nov, 2017 00:27
-
Why would SpaceX not want to have commander-type on a flight like this? Automatic-controlled or not? Even just from a confidence/PR point-of-view, if nothing else. Also, even though IIRC Mr. Musk offered NASA a seat there has been no interest expressed by them in taking up the offer, at least that I have heard of.
-
#1241
by
cppetrie
on 15 Nov, 2017 00:39
-
Actually, upon reading the document further, the verification section applies to flights with crew (Part A). Part B applies to flight with “Space Flight Participants”. There is no such verification section present, only a section on informing the participant(s) of the material risks involved in launch and landing. As this flight would have no crew (automated flight control) all parties onboard would be participants. It’s a close reading of the regulation but appears permitted.
That is the "out" that was given with an eye towards both automated tourist-y flights as well as what to do with paying passengers on otherwise-crewed missions (e.g., the puking cargo for Virgin Galactic and BO suborbital hops).
However, the key here is what constitutes both "informed consent" and "material risks." Informed consent is one of those things that seems pretty straightforward to engineers and analytic types, but which is a lot more complicated in practice. Are all those rote warnings in drug commercials on TV enough warning to elicit "informed consent" or must a doctor still spend 30 minutes with you going over the real-world risks he may or may not have seen in his own practice from use of that drug? Is the form you sign before going into surgery enough information to give consent when you don't know ahead of time that the doc has settled a dozen medical malpractice claims in the last couple years? Now extrapolate the same *concept* (not details) to a brand new field of commercial endeavor ...
Same goes for materiality of risks. Exploding rockets is an obvious, material risk. But what about a statistical risks of a solar flare/CME, or ECLSS failures? Is some small-but-estimable risk "material" enough to require the spaceflight provider to disclose it to the participant? And if so, in what form must that disclosure be made? (See the first point above). Are several pages of fine print enough or do participants have to have detailed personal discussions with representatives of the provider?
For some people, all of these concepts are old-hat and obvious; for others, they less so. But these are the kinds of real-world details that will get hammered out in practice over the coming years.
The regulations lay out what specifically must be provided to participants. Clearly there is a need to explain what some/all of it means but at some point the onus is on the guy/gal climbing aboard to understand there is risk and you could potentially be killed. If they sign off and still climb onboard, they’ve accepted the risk.
-
#1242
by
mme
on 15 Nov, 2017 00:46
-
Why would SpaceX not want to have commander-type on a flight like this? Automatic-controlled or not? Even just from a confidence/PR point-of-view, if nothing else.
The same reason that elevators don't have operators anymore.
Also, even though IIRC Mr. Musk offered NASA a seat there has been no interest expressed by them in taking up the offer, at least that I have heard of.
NASA does not need to go on joy rides on commercial spacecraft.
-
#1243
by
eric z
on 15 Nov, 2017 01:16
-
I wouldn't compare a flight to the moon to an elevator ride, nor would I call a flight to the moon a joy ride, even though it may be a lot of fun! I would say that if a NASA astronaut, or maybe a retired-one still in good shape, flew in the crew I would not want to see NASA impose a lot of special requirements on that participation, any more than good old common-sense. The next era of space exploration will need a lot of cooperation between the public and private sectors, and this would IMHO be a good symbolic move for all concerned. Plus, don't forget the role COTS and CC have provided for in setting a foundation for this endeavor.
-
#1244
by
Negan
on 15 Nov, 2017 01:18
-
§460.17 Verification program.
An operator must successfully verify the integrated performance of a vehicle's hardware and any software in an operational flight environment before allowing any space flight participant on board during a flight. Verification must include flight testing.
Seems relevant. I imagine most people would interpret that to mean Dragon 2 has to fly on Falcon Heavy, and possibly even into cis-lunar space, before any spaceflight participant is allowed to make the flight.
So does this mean
all verification must include flight testing? Operational flight environments can be simulated and would seem to me as a reasonable substitute considering the extreme cost of flight testing in this case. My guess if the FAA takes the all or nothing stance this mission isn't happening.
Edit: I don't see this likely. FAA's going to it's due diligence to CYA and the mission will go forward at least on their end. There's wiggle room and it's the same wiggle room SpaceX and the customers (or should I say their lawyers) saw when the decided to go forward with this.
-
#1245
by
cppetrie
on 15 Nov, 2017 01:22
-
Actually, upon reading the document further, the verification section applies to flights with crew (Part A). Part B applies to flight with “Space Flight Participants”. There is no such verification section present, only a section on informing the participant(s) of the material risks involved in launch and landing. As this flight would have no crew (automated flight control) all parties onboard would be participants. It’s a close reading of the regulation but appears permitted.
§460.3 Applicability.
(a) This subpart applies to:
(1) An applicant for a license or permit under this chapter who proposes to have flight crew on board a vehicle or proposes to employ a remote operator of a vehicle with a human on board.
(2) An operator licensed or permitted under this chapter who has flight crew on board a vehicle or who employs a remote operator of a vehicle with a human on board.
It still applies if you don't have crew members on board.
My reading of that is that part A applies whether the crew on board is operating the vessel or it is remotely operated. But passengers are not crew. Crew get paid. Passengers pay. Passengers are under part B.
The reality is none of us really knows at this point. I’m excited, though, that a company is exploring this part of the code and on the verge of putting it into practice. Exciting times for sure.
-
#1246
by
mme
on 15 Nov, 2017 01:39
-
I wouldn't compare a flight to the moon to an elevator ride, nor would I call a flight to the moon a joy ride, even though it may be a lot of fun! I would say that if a NASA astronaut, or maybe a retired-one still in good shape, flew in the crew I would not want to see NASA impose a lot of special requirements on that participation, any more than good old common-sense. The next era of space exploration will need a lot of cooperation between the public and private sectors, and this would IMHO be a good symbolic move for all concerned. Plus, don't forget the role COTS and CC have provided for in setting a foundation for this endeavor.
If I spent the money to fly around the Moon in an automated capsule with a friend I would have no interest in adding a crew member that will literally have nothing to do. I suspect the mystery participants are intelligent and adventurous. The flight participants will be trained to reset whatever equipment can be reset, flip through binders, and radio for further instructions. I would argue that the trip becomes much more fun having some responsibility for your own safety and learning how to comport yourself.
I am not belittling it by calling it a "joy ride". If I had made better life choices and had more money than I knew what to do with, I would totally go for it. It would be the experience of a lifetime.
It's not NASA's mission. If NASA wants to pay for a mission they are free to do so. Furthermore I doubt NASA wants to fly BEO on anything other than Orion as that could raise some inquisitive eyebrows.
-
#1247
by
Proponent
on 15 Nov, 2017 01:40
-
Curious how NASA was considering putting people on the first SLS flight that quite clearly would not have been verified beforehand with a test flight.
And didn't just consider it, but stated that it could be done, it would just cost more.
-
#1248
by
gongora
on 15 Nov, 2017 01:46
-
Actually, upon reading the document further, the verification section applies to flights with crew (Part A). Part B applies to flight with “Space Flight Participants”. There is no such verification section present, only a section on informing the participant(s) of the material risks involved in launch and landing. As this flight would have no crew (automated flight control) all parties onboard would be participants. It’s a close reading of the regulation but appears permitted.
§460.3 Applicability.
(a) This subpart applies to:
(1) An applicant for a license or permit under this chapter who proposes to have flight crew on board a vehicle or proposes to employ a remote operator of a vehicle with a human on board.
(2) An operator licensed or permitted under this chapter who has flight crew on board a vehicle or who employs a remote operator of a vehicle with a human on board.
It still applies if you don't have crew members on board.
My reading of that is that part A applies whether the crew on board is operating the vessel or it is remotely operated. But passengers are not crew. Crew get paid. Passengers pay. Passengers are under part B.
The reality is none of us really knows at this point. I’m excited, though, that a company is exploring this part of the code and on the verge of putting it into practice. Exciting times for sure.
Part B is in addition to Part A, not a completely separate set of rules.
-
#1249
by
deruch
on 15 Nov, 2017 01:52
-
Actually, upon reading the document further, the verification section applies to flights with crew (Part A). Part B applies to flight with “Space Flight Participants”. There is no such verification section present, only a section on informing the participant(s) of the material risks involved in launch and landing. As this flight would have no crew (automated flight control) all parties onboard would be participants. It’s a close reading of the regulation but appears permitted.
§460.3 Applicability.
(a) This subpart applies to:
(1) An applicant for a license or permit under this chapter who proposes to have flight crew on board a vehicle or proposes to employ a remote operator of a vehicle with a human on board.
(2) An operator licensed or permitted under this chapter who has flight crew on board a vehicle or who employs a remote operator of a vehicle with a human on board.
It still applies if you don't have crew members on board.
Dragon is autonomous not remote operated they are distinct. Personally, I'm in the camp that says the verification requirement doesn't apply, but I'm sure we'll find out eventually which camp is right.
-
#1250
by
QuantumG
on 15 Nov, 2017 02:04
-
Dragon is autonomous not remote operated
No it isn't. There's a whole ground-ops team. They even call themselves that.
-
#1251
by
envy887
on 15 Nov, 2017 02:04
-
§460.17 Verification program.
An operator must successfully verify the integrated performance of a vehicle's hardware and any software in an operational flight environment before allowing any space flight participant on board during a flight. Verification must include flight testing.
Seems relevant. I imagine most people would interpret that to mean Dragon 2 has to fly on Falcon Heavy, and possibly even into cis-lunar space, before any spaceflight participant is allowed to make the flight.
A test flight has a differential cost of an additional second stage and Dragon+FH booster recovery & refurbishment. Most likely worthwhile to retire the associated risks with deep space flight and reentry even if it wasn't required by the FAA (and I agree with the interpretation that it is required).
-
#1252
by
Negan
on 15 Nov, 2017 02:08
-
§460.17 Verification program.
An operator must successfully verify the integrated performance of a vehicle's hardware and any software in an operational flight environment before allowing any space flight participant on board during a flight. Verification must include flight testing.
Seems relevant. I imagine most people would interpret that to mean Dragon 2 has to fly on Falcon Heavy, and possibly even into cis-lunar space, before any spaceflight participant is allowed to make the flight.
A test flight has a differential cost of an additional second stage and Dragon+FH booster recovery & refurbishment. Most likely worthwhile to retire the associated risks with deep space flight and reentry even if it wasn't required by the FAA (and I agree with the interpretation that it is required).
I thought there was no guarantee the core stage could be recovered. Did that change?
-
#1253
by
envy887
on 15 Nov, 2017 02:10
-
§460.17 Verification program.
An operator must successfully verify the integrated performance of a vehicle's hardware and any software in an operational flight environment before allowing any space flight participant on board during a flight. Verification must include flight testing.
Seems relevant. I imagine most people would interpret that to mean Dragon 2 has to fly on Falcon Heavy, and possibly even into cis-lunar space, before any spaceflight participant is allowed to make the flight.
A test flight has a differential cost of an additional second stage and Dragon+FH booster recovery & refurbishment. Most likely worthwhile to retire the associated risks with deep space flight and reentry even if it wasn't required by the FAA (and I agree with the interpretation that it is required).
I thought there was no guarantee the core stage could be recovered. Did that change?
That was for Red Dragon. There is no official word on Lunar Dragon, but it is likely a lighter payload to a much lower orbit, so the core is definitely recoverable IMO.
-
#1254
by
DreamyPickle
on 15 Nov, 2017 02:11
-
If I spent the money to fly around the Moon in an automated capsule with a friend I would have no interest in adding a crew member that will literally have nothing to do.
Exactly! We don't know the identity of the passengers but they might very well be a couple in a relationship. They wouldn't want a stranger to tag along on their week-long vacation in a cramped capsule.
If more people were involved it would have been part of the initial announcement. It would also impact life support.
-
#1255
by
guckyfan
on 15 Nov, 2017 02:26
-
Why would SpaceX not want to have commander-type on a flight like this? Automatic-controlled or not? Even just from a confidence/PR point-of-view, if nothing else.
The same reason that elevators don't have operators anymore.
Also, even though IIRC Mr. Musk offered NASA a seat there has been no interest expressed by them in taking up the offer, at least that I have heard of.
NASA does not need to go on joy rides on commercial spacecraft.
To me this offer had the taste of a calculated insult. This may be slightly overstated.
-
#1256
by
Negan
on 15 Nov, 2017 02:29
-
Curious how NASA was considering putting people on the first SLS flight that quite clearly would not have been verified beforehand with a test flight.
And didn't just consider it, but stated that it could be done, it would just cost more.
Good point. Dragon 2 and FH will be going through more flight testing than this mission would have.
-
#1257
by
yg1968
on 15 Nov, 2017 02:35
-
Curious how NASA was considering putting people on the first SLS flight that quite clearly would not have been verified beforehand with a test flight. I guess the government is exempt from following its own rules.
Yes, the rules specify that the regulations do not apply to Space activities carried out by the United States Government on behalf of the United States Government. See 400.2.
-
#1258
by
the_other_Doug
on 15 Nov, 2017 02:36
-
If this type of rule had been in effect during Apollo (and applied to same), NASA would have been forced to attempt an unmanned LM landing before landing it with crew aboard -- even though chances of such an unmanned landing to succeed were considered very slim, and NASA rejected the notion even before the Fire. But, without an unmanned demonstration, you'd be blocked from trying the manned landing...
As well, the Shuttle could never have flown with crew under this rule. It would have required an unmanned orbital flight test, which, the way the Shuttle was designed, was not possible. It was not a spacecraft that could be both launched and landed without crew; the gear could not be deployed except manually. Any automation of gear deployment was deemed so dangerous (in case gear deploy came early) that the system was designed with lockouts; I've read in a number of places that NASA refused to consider automating gear deployment under any circumstances. Meaning that, if you abandoned a Shuttle orbiter with TPS damage (something planned for in post-Columbia thinking), you could try to auto-enter the abandoned orbiter, but under no circumstances could you try to land it -- since you could not extend the gear. If it survived the entry, you still had to ditch it in the ocean somewhere.
So, the question begged is thus -- why can NASA get away with s**t that commercial carriers aren't allowed to? Doesn't that seem somehow illegal to y'all?
-
#1259
by
yg1968
on 15 Nov, 2017 02:48
-
NASA has its own rules. These FAA rules do not apply for commercial crew either. NASA didn't require an uncrewed test flight for CCtCap proposals. However, both SpaceX and Boeing proposed an uncrewed test flight and NASA accepted these. But it wasn't an actual NASA requirement.
