You know, I can think of very few people in whose opinions I have less interest right now, with the possible exception of Mike Griffin, than Scott Horowitz. The sad thing is, he probably actually believes this:
To help address the safety and reliability issues, SAIC was commissioned to evaluate the potential hazards of the first stage solid and the overall reliability of the vehicle. The SAIC study (SAICNY05-04-1F) showed that a worst-case scenario of a catastrophic case burst of the first stage (extremely unlikely) would result in a maximum overpressure at the crew capsule of approzimately 1 psi. This overpressure is well within the design characteristics of the capsule. SAIC also conducted an initial Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) evaluation of the reliability of the launch vehicle and estimated a launch vehicle failure rate (LOV) of 1 in 483 and a loss of crew rate (LOC) of 1 in 3,145 at the mean of the estimated uncertainty distribution. Recent NASA PRA estimates for the current configuration predict a LOC of approximately 1 in 2,500. This compares to the LOC for Shuttle of 1 in 88.
“1 in 3,145”?
Really? Not “1 in 3,144” or “1 in 3,146”? And did they include all of the TBD gimcrackery that was going to be incorporated to keep the vehicle from shaking itself and Orion apart?
And how many centuries did he expect this vehicle, that would cost billions of dollars each flight, to fly in order to determine whether the genius rocket scientists at SAIC got the numbers right?
It would have a little more credibility if he had at least said one in three thousand (though not a lot), and not made the elementary first-year physics student’s mistake of overprecision.
But you don’t get safety by doing PRAs. If we learned anything from the Shuttle, we sure as hell should have learned that. You get safety from flying. A lot.
But the other thing that is disturbing are the requirements:
Do not compromise crew safety for cost, performance, or schedule
This requirement, taken to its logical conclusion, would keep us on the planet forever. Don’t compromise it for cost? OK, then it becomes unaffordable because we can’t compromise “safety.” Don’t compromise for performance? OK, then the job doesn’t get done. Don’t compromise for schedule? So when do we fly?
This was a system of the astronauts, by the astronauts, for the astronauts. Which says to me, we need a different kind of astronaut, one who takes their job, and its purpose, seriously.
Life, and engineering are compromises. If safety becomes the ultimate value, then you might as well stay in bed (assuming that someone doesn’t decide to pump poison into your bedroom, or a meteroid doesn’t come crashing through the roof). And the irony, of course (again, as we should have learned from the Shuttle) is that you don’t get safety by spending billions in the attempt. The only way to get some level of safety is to do something a lot, make mistakes, and learn from them. In fact, if Shuttle were still a fully-operational program, with new parts being produced, and a reasonable flight rate, it would be safer now than at any time in its history, because we learned a lot from Challenger and Columbia. But it’s not, and we can’t afford to fly it enough to make it truly safe.
The lesson here is that if you want safety, don’t avoid reusables — reuse them, a lot. But the nonsensical lesson that many (including the CAIB) seemed to take away from Columbia, in addition to unrealistic safety requirements, is that we should return to throwing away the vehicle so that each flight is a first flight, and then put a heavy, expensive escape system on it when it fails anyway.
People with such an attitude are fundamentally unserious about space. The unwillingness to risk the lives of astronauts says that what we are trying to accomplish in space is unimportant. As long as that is the case, it will remain unaffordable, and we will accomplish little. Today’s announcement is, I hope a first step toward a more sane, and realistic approach to human spaceflight.
Sorry to be so crude, but the ‘turd’ has finally been fished out of the swimming pool.
Now, let’s see who remembers how to swim and hold some competitive events!
Makes me want to read The Right Stuff again. Nobody wants an astronaut to die; I can vividly remember crying in my third-grade classroom when the Challenger exploded. But we can’t try to make space safe and expect to have any real accomplishments or progress.
Having not met any astronauts, I have to think you’re being a little hard on them. They may not be in any hurry to die, but they as a group understand risk. But that’s a nit.
As an outsider, I think NASA’s problem is a mixture of Not Invented Here and bureaucratic risk avoidance. Part of bureaucratic risk is a healthy amount of CYA, including all the detailed studies and great expenditure. (If it’s expensive, it must be good.)
My comment was not about astronauts in general, but those who have been sincerely (as opposed to keep their jobs) defending this philosophy and vehicle concept.
The original astronauts were test pilots. This was in the day when a significant percentage of military pilots died in the line of duty and test piloting took the risks to a whole new level. Go to Edwards AFB and you’ll find that most of the streets, buildings and the base itself are named for dead test pilots. So those men knew that taking risks was part of the job. There’s a big difference between taking risks and taking foolish risks, but that’s another matter. I’ve heard fighter pilots say “Death is not too high a price for looking shit hot” but I bet their commanders disagree.
Today, we have much of society obsessed with the notion of personal safety to absurd lengths. No only do we want to eliminate risk in our own lives, we want to prevent others from accepting risks. That leads to statements like the one in another thread that declared that the first fatality would be the end of commercial manned spaceflight. Perfection is seldom attainable in any human activity and if that’s you’re standard, you might as well give up now.
and then put a heavy, expensive escape system on it when it fails anyway.
You forgot to put “risky” in there as well.
Today, we have much of society obsessed with the notion of personal safety to absurd lengths.
I don’t think so, larry j. I think you’ve swallowed a little bit of the Kool AId that the Democratic statists and the MSM have been pouring down your throat every minute of the day for decades.
What we actually have is a widespread social myth, vigorously promoted by the advocates of Big Goverment, that “people don’t like risks,” that people want to be protected by Super Nanny in Washington. That myth serves the purpose of Democrats ramming legistlation on every aspect of your lives through Congress, and it serves the purpose of the media, which would love to have you frozen in front of the tube like a deer in the headlights, waiting to be told what to fear, and what to do about it. It even serves the interests of the various “professional” groups out there, who would love Trained professional. Do not attempt this at home! to become everyone’s watchword.
But compare that myth — your perception that “people” or “others” demand infinite safety — with actual people. Is this what you are like? Your son, your daughter, your best friend, the guys you know well at work? I bet not. Does it correspond with how people actually behave when under serious threat, like the “Let’s Roll” folks on Flight 93 on 9/11? Or like the folks who took out Richard Reid? Or the panty bomber? I think not.
It’s not society that’s obsessed with personal safety. It’s those folks who tell us what “society” thinks — and who are hoping you don’t pay attention to how any actual real human beings behave to double-check their assertions.
Carl, I very often hear a clamor to pass more restrictions in the name of safety. I see parents who won’t let their kids out of their sight because of their fears. Try to build the modern equivalent of most of the high mileage cars from the 80s or 90s and see how fast the government slaps you down. Those cars aren’t “safe enough” any more.
I very often encounter people who want to use the force of law to make people behave in a manner they deem “safer”, even when it isn’t. Last year, the Colorado legislature tried to join the ranks of states that banned the use of cell phones without hands-free devices in cars, despite the multiple studies that show the hands-free devices are not any safer. It was about the perception of safety rather than the reality. For the record, the law that eventually passed prohibited teens from using cell phones while driving (with or without the hands free devices).
If an abomination like ObamaCare ever comes to pass, you can rest assured that the government will deem certain activities “too dangerous”, be it sports like skydiving or eating the “wrong” foods.
You’re rant is roughly 5 years behind the crew office’s response to SAICNY05-04-IF, though the points seem very much the same. The exception being a discussion of acceptable risk.
Yeah, back in ’08 when I’m reading how great and safe Orion would be – me and others are working the requirement specs that specified major cuts in reliability and safety systems. Saw more black humor about that program around the office then any program I’ve ever been on. While folks were hailing it and the rest were a great stride forward in safety.
Carl, I very often hear a clamor…
I know you do, larry. But from where? Are you hearing the “clamor” from your actual friends and neighbors, people you know, your family? Or are you hearing reports of the “clamor” from the MSM and government? And if it’s the latter, and you know they have a vested interest in convincing you that “everyone” wants some restriction or other — why do you believe it?
If an abomination like ObamaCare ever comes to pass, you can rest assured that the government will deem certain activities “too dangerous”, be it sports like skydiving or eating the “wrong” foods.
Just like the passage of Medicare eliminated skydiving and junk food for seniors, and the creation of VA health benefits eliminated skydiving and junk food for veterans?
Things are not as bad as you imagine.
Just like the passage of Medicare eliminated skydiving and junk food for seniors, and the creation of VA health benefits eliminated skydiving and junk food for veterans?
I haven’t noticed anyone trying to “bend the cost curve” on Medicare. And it’s going broke. In case you didn’t notice.
As we continue to say, if you think government health care can be done cheaper, show us how with Medicare first, then maybe we’ll take you seriously. Until then, it’s nothing but a dishonest power grab.
Another step toward reusability: NASA’s Commercial Crew Development just awarded a $20 million Space Act Agreement to Sierra Nevada for work related to Dream Chaser (based on NASA’s HL-20, which in turn was based on the MiG-105 “Spiral”).
Rand Simberg wrote:
“This was a system of the astronauts, by the astronauts, for the astronauts. Which says to me, we need a different kind of astronaut, one who takes their job, and its purpose, seriously.”
Rand,
You hit the nail on the head. The Astronaut Office, JSC Mission Ops, and many other entrenched groups in NASA talk a good game about opening up space to many, many more people for exploration, science, and commercialization. But opening up space to many people is the the last thing they want to see happen.
> Edward Wright Says:
> February 1st, 2010 at 3:57 pm
> Another step toward reusability: NASA’s Commercial Crew Development
> just awarded a $20 million Space Act Agreement to Sierra Nevada
> for work related to Dream Chaser (based on NASA’s HL-20, which
> in turn was based on the MiG-105 “Spiral”).
Which in turn were based on lifting body studies of the 50’s and ’60’s.
$20million out of a $20 billion a year budget.
;/
I would say first, the Ares I was originally proposed as putting together a few existing proven components, which would have been a good idea. You avoid a lot of design costs and infant mortality issues. But as this history shows the design has morphed into something where none of those existing proven components are left unmodified. The current Ares I design will be no easier than a clean sheet design, and if you were going to do a clean sheet design you wouldn’t use a giant solid for the first stage. Scott Horowitz makes it seem like a perfectly logical chain of reasoning got the design to this point, but ignores the fact that the original reason this architecture was chosen got lost along the way.
know you do, larry. But from where? Are you hearing the “clamor” from your actual friends and neighbors, people you know, your family? Or are you hearing reports of the “clamor” from the MSM and government? And if it’s the latter, and you know they have a vested interest in convincing you that “everyone” wants some restriction or other — why do you believe it?
I live in a conservative area and most of my friends are conservatives, but I still hear knee-jerk reactions that something is “too dangerous” and should be restricted. I believe this has become ingrained in too many people’s minds.
> Edward Wright Says:
> February 1st, 2010 at 3:57 pm
> Another step toward reusability: NASA’s Commercial Crew Development
> just awarded a $20 million Space Act Agreement to Sierra Nevada
> for work related to Dream Chaser (based on NASA’s HL-20, which
> in turn was based on the MiG-105 “Spiral”).
Ok I’m curious. Out of $50 Million in grants Space Dev gets $20, Boeing gets $18M directly, and ULA (a partial Boeing teams gets $6 or $7m?
Whats the criteria here?