Wayne Hale thinks that he posted in haste. But the problem remains:
Now I have re-read it and have some additional thoughts. It is clear that this is a vast scaling down from the requirements that say, Ares-1 and Orion had. And many of the paragraphs say that the specifications and standards can be replaced with alternatives, or with other standards that “meet the intent of” spec such and such. That is good. And to the casual reader that sounds like a big change. Unfortunately, it is not. Having to prove that an alternative standard is just as good as the standard NASA listed is an uphill battle. The adjudicator will be some GS-13 who has lived with one standard his whole career, understands it thoroughly, probably sat on the technical committee that wrote it, and loves it. Proving that his baby is ugly is going to be time consuming, and probably fruitless. I speak from sad experience.
So, what is my recommendation? Simple. Do what the Launch Services Program does: require that providers HAVE standards and follow them – don’t make them pick particular processes or standards, let the flexible, nimble, [your adjective here] commercial firms pick what suits their business best. As long as they have standards and stick to them – that is what we should require.
I would note that this is the FAA’s approach for launch licensing of passenger flights, until the industry matures sufficiently to develop certification standards (a point in time that is many years off).
The adjudicator will be some GS-13 who has lived with one standard his whole career, understands it thoroughly, probably sat on the technical committee that wrote it, and loves it.
No, no, no… he misses the whole NASA gestalt here. NASA runs by committee. The standard was written by a committee, now long disbanded, in some cases deceased. The reason for paragraph 3.2.6.5.1 is lost to antiquity, though there must have been a good reason for it, since so many gods endorsed it. Now, to qualify an alternative, you have to convene another committee. And, because things are better in the 21st century, there are many interlocking committees, dealing with issues like aerosciences, loads, testing… and that’s before you reach the decision-making panels, which have some of the same people “with their management hats on”, with some actual managers thrown in. Eventually someone at an SES level will sign off on the substitution, once “consensus” has been found…. The whole process is a marvel to watch. 😉
These are my standards, and if you don’t like ’em I have others.
It’s like in the computer business: “Sure we have standards. Thousands of them!”
Standards are good but premature, inflexible standards can really hamper progress. Imagine if the FAA’s predecessor (the CAA) had dictated an airliner standard back in the 1930s. We’d still be getting around on DC-3s (great plane but not exactly what you’d want for long distance air travel).
Do what the Launch Services Program does: require that providers HAVE standards and follow them – don’t make them pick particular processes or standards, let the flexible, nimble, [your adjective here] commercial firms pick what suits their business best. As long as they have standards and stick to them – that is what we should require.
Isn’t that the whole point of ISO-9000?
“Say what you do — do what you say.”
It’s better to have an overbearing requirements document that you can point at and say “we don’t do that” than it is to have someone say “you don’t meet our standard (which we haven’t published)” which is how it was 6 months ago.
It’s best when the market chooses it’s own standards. By what right does govt. have to say what an emerging industry does? They do it. They justify it. But do they actually have any right?
Our nation is based on the rights of individuals. Govt. has no rights. Laws must be necessary and proper or they should not exist.
We do seem to have reached a point where we can no longer agree on what is necessary and proper.
ken, uhh.. NASA is the *customer*, that gives them the right to demand anything they want – whether they’ll get it and what they could have asked for instead is another matter.