Getting out of bed isn't "safe". Staying in bed isn't "safe". Citing a failure to "prove something safe" is meaningless because there is no such thing. There are only odds and standards. If you have a system with a 1 in 90 chance of failure, and an escape scheme that works 80% of the time, you've met your 1 in 270 odds. If there are 100,000 people living in space or on other planets in 40 years, any actions you take safety wise will save lives that would have been lost, and will likely cost lives that wouldn't have been lost. If you can't find it within yourself to accept the responsibility, you shouldn't be in the game. That's why we use data and not cliches to make the decisions.
With the ISS preparing for commercial visitors, what is the maximum capacity?
Quote from: mgeagon on 06/17/2020 04:58 amWith the ISS preparing for commercial visitors, what is the maximum capacity? I don't know, but I would imagine a limiting factor would be CO2 scrubbing capability.
If you have a system with a 1 in 90 chance of failure, and an escape scheme that works 80% of the time, you've met your 1 in 270 odds.
Actually at some occasion, can't remember where, Elon Musk mentioned that the requirement is 1/270 without the launch escape system, so the real safety should be somewhere around 1/900 or so.
SpaceX has a 1 in 276 chance of loss of crew by NASA's calculations. This is without taking into account the LAS system. Therefore the real number is way lower. SpaceX has never calculated that real number precisely; Hans estimates the number to be certainly at least 1:several thousand.
Quote from: ChrML on 07/08/2020 11:40 pmActually at some occasion, can't remember where, Elon Musk mentioned that the requirement is 1/270 without the launch escape system, so the real safety should be somewhere around 1/900 or so.Perhaps you are thinking of Hans Königsmann's 2 June 2020 interview (in German) by Der Speigel, discussed here. Silmfeanor translated one excerpt as:QuoteSpaceX has a 1 in 276 chance of loss of crew by NASA's calculations. This is without taking into account the LAS system. Therefore the real number is way lower. SpaceX has never calculated that real number precisely; Hans estimates the number to be certainly at least 1:several thousand.Our subsequent discussion pointed out that the math didn't make much sense, as the LAS only helps during ascent anomalies, and that a lot of the risk comes from on-orbit MMD impacts and from reentry and landing concerns.
How @SpaceX & @elonmusk beat Boeing in the race to launch NASA astronauts: A short CNBC history on the Commercial Crew program, featuring NASA administrator @JimBridenstine and former NASA deputy administrator @Lori_Garver:
Boeing killed DARPA's XS-1[/url] by dropping out after having become the program's sole prime contractor. Could Boeing give up on Starliner too?
Quote from: Proponent on 10/05/2020 05:12 pmBoeing killed DARPA's XS-1[/url] by dropping out after having become the program's sole prime contractor. Could Boeing give up on Starliner too?Yes it could. If the bean counters say that Boeing is going to lose money by continuing the program, that may very well happen. However, this could have severe consequences for Boeing in trying to get future contracts from NASA since the category for "past performance" would get a low value.
It flew under the radar a little with all the media attention surrounding the impending Crew 1 launch.But during the Flight Readiness Review on October 10th, 2020, a major milestone was reached in the Commercial Crew Program: the first provider received full Human Rating Certification when Kathy Lueders signed the Human Rating Certification Plan (with a rather ordinary pen).See attached image.
But during the Flight Readiness Review on October 10th, 2020, a major milestone was reached in the Commercial Crew Program: the first provider received full Human Rating Certification when Kathy Lueders signed the Human Rating Certification Plan (with a rather ordinary pen).
Quote from: woods170 on 11/13/2020 05:41 pmBut during the Flight Readiness Review on October 10th, 2020, a major milestone was reached in the Commercial Crew Program: the first provider received full Human Rating Certification when Kathy Lueders signed the Human Rating Certification Plan (with a rather ordinary pen).It’s probably a really stupid/pointless question, but who is the final signatory on that page, the one listed under certification? All the others can be read but I couldn’t make that one out? It’s hardly important, but I often find the boring stuff interesting
It is blurred but I think it is Steve Jurczyk.
Quote from: woods170 on 11/13/2020 05:41 pmIt flew under the radar a little with all the media attention surrounding the impending Crew 1 launch.But during the Flight Readiness Review on October 10th, 2020, a major milestone was reached in the Commercial Crew Program: the first provider received full Human Rating Certification when Kathy Lueders signed the Human Rating Certification Plan (with a rather ordinary pen).See attached image.Typo: FRR was on November 10th, 2020.
NASA has submitted a draft agreement for government approval that would allow Russian cosmonauts to begin flying to the International Space Station on U.S. crew capsules next year in a no-funds exchanged arrangement with Russia’s space agency.In return, Russia will continue launching U.S. and international astronauts on Soyuz missions.
