I think that, with the nonsensical report that it released on Friday, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel has demonstrated that it’s no longer a body to take seriously, if it was before. The notion that a paper rocket, that will be so expensive to operate that it will rarely fly, is safer than one with a proven track record is ludicrous. Mark Matthews has a report at the Orlando Sentinel blog. He points to perhaps the most absurd quote:
“To abandon Ares I as a baseline vehicle for an alternative without demonstrated capability nor proven superiority (or even equivalence) is unwise and probably not cost-effective,” notes the 117-page report, issued late Friday evening.
Specifically, the advisory panel attacks the idea of using commercial rockets and international partners to resupply the station, as suggested by a 10-member panel convened this summer under the direction of retired Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine.
The ASAP said NASA warned against putting too much faith in commercial or international spacecraft because there weren’t proper standards for safety.
The notion that anyone defending Ares is concerned with cost effectiveness is lunacy. Clark Lindsey has responded to this nonsense, and Elon Musk has put up a robust defense of his system:
“I have to say I’ve lost a lot of respect for the ASAP panel,” Musk said. “If they are to say such things, then they ought to say it on the basis of data, not on random speculation.”
…
According to Musk, the panel’s findings are “bizarre.” He says the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft “meet all of NASA’s published human-rating requirements, apart from the escape systems.”“They’ve spent almost no time at SpaceX,” Musk said. “They’ve not reviewed our data. They have no idea what what our margins are, and what is and what isn’t human-rated.”
In addition, yesterday, the Commercial Spaceflight Federation put up a point-by-point response. It’s appalling to think that this sort of thing might actually influence policy. I hope it won’t.
Rand:
Musk’s argument appears to be that SpaceX is ALMOST man-rated. Everything except for the launch escape system. That sounds almost as useful as a parachute that ALMOST works.
The real question he should be asking himself, is his company has not yet completed such a basic and necessary step.
Cheers,
Nelson
P.S. Keep up the lively commentary. There are many entirely valid ways to look at this situation.
The ASAP said NASA warned against putting too much faith in commercial or international spacecraft
That’s a funny warning because NASA’s non funding of Commercial Crew and ASAP’s preferred Ares 1 train wreck have driven NASA in to the arms of depending on an international spacecraft, Soyuz, for the next half decade if not longer.
The real question he should be asking himself, is his company has not yet completed such a basic and necessary step.
I’m not sure what the question you’re saying he should be asking is, but if he hasn’t built an escape system, it’s because no one has funded him to. It’s not needed for cargo, which is currently his primary revenue source. And in fact it’s not obvious that an escape system is either “basic” or “necessary.” It depends on vehicle reliability. Escape systems can actually introduce more risk than they remove, and not be worth their cost and weight. There is a reason that airline passengers aren’t issued parachutes.
That report was so obviously biased in favor of NASA and Ares that I looked at who the panel members were. For some it was obvious where their bias came from but for most I couldn’t tell why they held such views. So why the bias? Is it as simple as they are worried that their paycheck will be stopped if they don’t say the “right” things?
The question of the necessity for a launch escape system is: How does Falcon 9 reliability compare to that of the Shuttle which has no LES?
Let’s talk about the organizational incentives problem with having a NASA entity responsible for the safety assessment that affects a NASA decision in which the agency has a stake in one outcome versus another. One part of the solution for the government’s space policies has got to be the creation of an independent entity for such assessments, with its own staff and chain of command, independent of any operational agency. Of course the R&D agency shouldn’t be an operational agency either, but that’s a different problem.
To abandon
Ares Ithe Space Shuttle as a baseline vehicle for an alternative without demonstrated capability nor proven superiority (or even equivalence) is unwise and probably not cost-effective.There, fixed it for them. The Shuttle certainly needs to be abandoned for a newer system. Ares I isn’t it.
Do we need a government organisation at all to provide oversight? It looks as if whatever the government does, it does badly. Banking oversight, policing, social housing, running car companies etc. Is there anything the government does that people are enthusiastic about?
If a government organisation is in fact needed, shouldn’t it be the FAA?
The history of the ASAP also does not give us a lot of confidence in their statements. Several panels have abruptly resigned since they no longer reflected NASA needs – so does NASA listen to them or do they listen to NASA?
This entire discussion (which is purportedly about safety) just defies common sense. How do you compare a rocket which is a set of PowerPoint charts to rockets that (in various versions) have flown for years?
” if he hasn’t built an escape system, it’s because no one has funded him to.”
Rand:
If SpaceX is so serious about crew launch, why haven’t their investors already funded development of launch excape capabilities? I can undestand that they are a tiny company and are focused entirely on Falcon 9 launch, but there is more to safety than selling vaporware…
Your argument only reinforces the impression that the commercial sector is driven primarily by profits rather than safety, and can causes one to wonder where else they might have selected the less expensive design option rather than the safest component. In aerospace is is common to use triple modular redundancy and backup systems on backup systems. You can’t call AAA when something goes wrong in LEO.
Cheers,
Nelson
Your argument only reinforces the impression that the commercial sector is driven primarily by profits rather than safety, and can causes one to wonder where else they might have selected the less expensive design option rather than the safest component.
When they actually fly someone on an unsafe vehicle, you might have a point.
In aerospace is is common to use triple modular redundancy and backup systems on backup systems.
Yes, and that is SpaceX’ approach as well. But there can be such a thing as too much redundancy. There is a point at which you can decrease, rather than increase reliability with it. There is an optimum amount, and it’s not at all clear that adding an escape system is part of that design.
“Your argument only reinforces the impression that the commercial sector is driven primarily by profits rather than safety…”
Why is that an “impression?” Of course the commercial sector is driven by profits, that’s what makes them “commercial.” Safety is a component of profitability. You fly safely because if you don’t, you are out of business.
It may be that SpaceX has already conducted the analysis that Rand alludes to, i.e. Dragon/F9 may be “safe enough” without the escape system. If a customer comes along that requires the escape system, then it seems perfectly logical to have that customer pay for its development.
SpaceX already knows that a launch escape system is required. The Russians include a launch escape system on all
Soyuz launches. The only people that I am aware of who did not think that launch escape was required were the geniuses who made the Challenger disaster possible. (I know from a former NASA employees that they were all alive up to the 200G impact of the crew compartment with the ocean.)
Yes, in theory, it is possible to have too much safety, but commercial is not there, and will not be there for a long, long time.
Nelson
SpaceX already knows that a launch escape system is required. The Russians include a launch escape system on all Soyuz launches.
The first statement does not follow from the second.
Yes, in theory, it is possible to have too much safety, but commercial is not there, and will not be there for a long, long time.
How would you know? What makes you an expert? Why should we take anything you write here seriously?
Musk’s argument appears to be that SpaceX is ALMOST man-rated. Everything except for the launch escape system.
Not to me. Elon clearly said his system meets or exceeds all published ‘man-rating’ specs. I would hope they don’t use a LES. It would reinforce the idea that SpaceX understands the reality of safety rather than the illusion of safety. As an astronaut I’d rather my safety be in the hands of the engineering department rather the the public relations department. A LES could greatly reduce overall safety.
Once Dragon is operationally tranporting astronauts the pressure on NASA to get out of the launch business will be more than they can resist. That’s when P.R. will become useful.
About the need for a Launch Escape System – that is related to the discussion about the need for a crew return vehicle from the Space Station. Without an LES or CRV, it puts pressure on the developers to design the very best system. Sort of similar to how the ancient Spartans supposedly were the only Greeks to live in a city that was NOT protected by walls. They wanted to be feared that no one would attack anyway. Of course they sacrificed enormously by twisting their society to support that idea, and I would not want to sacrifice too much performance. The developers of the Dragon should be motivated, but there are other motivations.
If I were developing Dragon, I would NOT design an LES at this time. Those folks should concentrate and do an incredible job at a reasonable set of objectives. The LES is not needed right now so don’t distract yourself from what is needed. Hopefully Dragon will do well, and it could then grow to carry people and would then have an LES added. Similar to what ESA is doing with ATV right now – take it a step at a time and count on evolutionary changes.
“Escape systems can actually introduce more risk than they remove, and not be worth their cost and weight. There is a reason that airline passengers aren’t issued parachutes.”
This is a rather alarming line of reasoning, the kind that led to seven dead astronauts in 1986. Of course any crewed spacecraft requires some kind of launch escape system. If Challenger didn’t prove that, nothing will. One of the main reasons for abandoning the Space Shuttle is the lack of a launch escape system. Otherwise, why give up such a massively capable vehicle in favor of a 1960s throwback capsule? You will probably always be able to find people who will ride a rocket into space whatever the risk, but if crew losses start to mount, and the public perceives that safety concerns are being overridden by bean counters, the sources of funding for manned space travel, public and private, will quickly dry up. If the Challenger and Columbia disasters had happened, say, four years apart instead of 17, U.S. manned space flight would have likely ended then and there. I know space flight will always be risky (and hence never remotely as safe as airline travel) and that overemphasizing safety will kill exploration beyond LEO, but you have to provide some kind of escape option during the most risky phase of any mission– the launch. I’m sure Elon Musk understands this and has no plan of putting crew into a Dragon capsule without an escape option.
Dragon needs a LES. That is a given requirement. SpaceX undestands. NASA understands. The Russians undestand. You do not.
Dragon does not yet have a LES. That is a given.
Dragon is not man-rated.
End of argument.
Dragon is not man-rated.
Like most people who use it, you don’t even know what that phrase means.
This is a rather alarming line of reasoning
I’ve started a new post on this topic.